That was me not minty, BTW. And I’m perfectly clear on your points.
Bull-fucking-shit. If he didn’t accept that premise he wouldn’t have wrote that god-damned Friend of the Court brief which he was in no way obligated to do. You’re being intentionally obtuse which does make me question your motives.
Oh come on. The AG of the state argues it in a brief to the Supreme Court and that doesn’t constitute an “endorsement” of the position? Does anyone honestly believe that Pryor decided to submit an amicus brief in support of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Texas statute merely to state conclusions that other states have come to, while not believing it himself? That’s bullshit, and if you know it’s bullshit then shame on you for saying it and if you don’t know it’s bullshit then shame on you for being clueless.
And, BTW, I think I’d hardly call my participation in the Santorum thread a “vigorous defense” of Santorum. My point in that thread was, and remains, that the quote in the OP was, standing alone, insufficient to reach the OP’s conclusion. Indeed, in that thread I specifically condemned other statements by Santorum that were posted in the course of the discussion.
Same thing here. I have scrupulously avoided stating that Pryor isn’t a homophobe or isn’t anti-gay, because he may well be precisely that.
You really need to grasp the simple fact that criticism of the evidence for a given conclusion is NOT tantamount to embracing the opposite conclusion.
That isn’t bullshit, it’s the truth. I personally believe that gun control laws don’t have much effect on gun-related crime. But if I was the AG in a state that had strong gun control laws, and those laws were put to a constitutional challenge, and those laws were the result of a belief on the part of the legislature that gun control did reduce gun crime, I would feel perfectly comfortable in stating that point in my brief in the same manner that Pryor stated his. My personal disagreement with the legislature would have no bearing on the validity of putting that argument in the brief.
Having said that, I have little doubt that Pryor agrees with the position of his brethren state legislatures, which is why I said this was a “nitpicky” point. I just wanted to point out that such an argument does not necessarily equate to personal endorsement.
And Homebrew: fuck you again. If you’re going to accuse me of harboring hatred in my heart, I really wish you’d come out and say it, rather than doing this backhanded chickenshit “questioning my motives” routine of yours.
Arrrrrrrrrrggh! That first quote is Homebrew, not Otto! I keep cutting and pasting the vbcode and then forgetting to change the name. Sorry 'bout that.
Dewey, I can’t say you’re a homophobic prick based on the limited interaction we’ve had on this board. But I can say I don’t trust you to be supportive my rights as a gay man. I distrust you and I’m sorry to know that you passed the Texas bar and may soon be practicing in my home state.
Is that clear enough for you?
Dewey your continual emphasis on your particular theory of what Pryor’s motives for picking the anti-vibrator battle(and the sodomy battle, etc) may have been has elevated it to the status of assertion. When you first pointed it out that he may have been acting simply from an ethical obligation, most people nodded and said “true, but not likely. There are hundreds of challenges to hundreds of laws per year. His ethical obligation extends to all of them. Beyond that, there did not seem to be a large resevoir of popular support for the anti-vibrator law. The impetus to pick this particular battle on grounds of fairly supporting the desires of his constituancy was extremely low.” Had you left it there, you would not be asked to prove your pet theory. Instead you have, throughout two threads now, continually harped on the “nothing more than his duty” viewpoint. Every time a new piece of evidence came to light which indicated Pryor had a bigger stake in this than ethical obligation to uphold the will an uncaring populace(such as the appeal after the first court struck it down), you pointed out ANOTHER possible, but unlikely, motive and touted it as justification for this particular act.
I’ve pretty much had it. You want to accuse me of knee-jerking to my pet theory that Pryor is a homophobe? Fine. I accuse you of knee-jerking to your pet theory that Pryor was simply acting as a concientious representative of his clients. I’m comfortable with the evidence and reasoning I used to reach my pateller reflex conclusion.
As to the legal arguement that protecting mutually consensual, adult, homosexual activities would also protect necrophilia, all that does is add to the body of evidence that cries for reform of the legal system. If you’re “correct” then that’s just wrong.
Enjoy,
Steven
There’s a GD thread on this if you’re interested.
And I note that from media reports it appears that the court went with the substantive due process route rather than the equal protection route. Though we’ll obviously have to wait for the actual opinion to see, if that is the case it would appear that minty’s criticism of Pryor’s brief was misguided – Minty wrote:
Assuming early media reports are correct, “any fool” doesn’t include the Supreme Court, who saw the “real issue” as being substantive due process. Turns out Pryor was focused on precisely the right issue (though obviously on the losing side). 
Upon what theory of the English usage does my evidentiary challenge magically transform into an assertion? I understand that you WANT me to have staked out that position, but your wanting that doesn’t make it so. **
Taking an appeal is part of the job of an AG. And apparently, Pryor was right in doing so: he was 2-0-1 at the 11th Circuit.
Curiously absent from criticism of Pryor’s defending the vibrator law is any sort of legal argument that he was wrong. **
Please do show me where I’ve definitively stated that Pryor was simply acting as an AG should and nothing more. I’ve scrupulously noted that Pryor may be (and probably is) a Victorian prude. My only point is that his defense of this particular law is not evidence of that fact because a non-prude AG could (and indeed should) defend the law in the same manner.
My, you’re a nasty little prick.
I have repeatedly expressed my support for removal of sodomy laws via the legislative process. Just because I don’t support your “by any means necessary” worldview does not mean I am unsupportive of gay rights.
At any rate, I fail utterly to see how my licensure and (hopefully) practice in the state of Texas affects any of these issues one whit. That was a perfectly hateful thing to say. It is ironic that one ostensibly devoted to tolerance would utter those words.
The simplest, narrowest, issue here was equal protection. Given the tendancy of the court to decide on the narrowest grounds that can provide a remedy, it was a pretty good bet they’d go with equal protection. I was in that court myself. I’m also suprised they took a broader view of the issue. I wonder if the recent laws in Canada(legalising homosexual marriage) had anything to do with it. A very interesting outcome for the SC case. Well, if you’re the kind of person who gets interested in legal decisions at least. Personally I think we’re all probably irredeemable debatophiles and thrive on the conflict. Should probably take some time off soon and go fishing or something.
Enjoy,
Steven
On Preview
Dewey, you’ve been using your inside voice when you say things like “Pryor may be (and probably is) a Victorian prude.” And you’ve been using your outside voice when you said things like “he did nothing more than his duty”. Sorry, the continual emphasis on that interpretation of Pryor’s actions makes it an assertion. You’re not arguing for a return to uncertainty by mere picking holes in other assertions, you’re, repeatedly and emphatically, putting forth an alternative. Where I come from, alternatives have to be proved every bit as much as the original assertion.
There wouldn’t be any lawyers who would defend an unpopular client in minty land, that’s for sure.
And I think you are projecting your own feelings onto Pryor. Perhaps you can’t bring yourself to defend a client with whom you disagree, but no one has shown any evidence that Pryor feels the same about gays. What we have established is that he didn’t take his kids to Disney Gay Day, and therefore he must be guilty of thought crime.
Sorry - that is exactly what the argument was. You and your compatriots consider anything less than fanatic enthusiasm for whatever the Democrats propose to be “intolerance”, and grounds for banishing the heretic from public life.
As far as your “private vs. public character” argument - insert the obligatory jab at the hypocrisy of the liberals who swear up and down that Clinton’s sexual pecadilloes can’t have any effect on his ability to do his job - but Pryor’s do.
Just out of curiousity, what the fuck are you saying here?
My original objection was to Feingold’s unshakeable determination to ignore the answer given him by Pryor in favor of the answer he wanted to hear. Hence his pig-headed refusal to understand that “I have no opinion on the matter” does not equate to “I am unshakeably opposed to it”. Feingold decided ahead of time, that Pryor could be discredited if Pryor could be forced into saying something that looked as if he was covering something up. Pryor refused to be backed into that corner. Defeated, Feingold simply then announced that he would assume from now on that Pryor had said what Feingold wanted him to say. This is both dishonest and stupid.
Less dishonest but almost equally stupid was your assertion that not wishing to take your four-year-old to Disney’s on Gay Day constitutes opposition to the idea that “gays have rights”.
I suppose none of you would have any objection to asking a female candidate if she had ever had an abortion, and disqualifying her if she had. After all, we have to assume that on any abortion-related issue, her objectivity would fly out the window.
So Pryor should be disqualified, because he didn’t want to go to Disney on Gay Day. How far do we go in eliminating people based on a lack of ardor for gay rights? Suppose it comes to light that Pryor was once propositioned in a men’s room. Should he be disqualified if he turned it down?
How far do we go in our intolerance of intolerance?
Regards,
Shodan
Not a bit ironic. Individuals can be scorned based on their own actions. Tolerance doesn’t mean I have to put up with bullshit.
Perhaps the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization definition would be instructive.
You’ll note that I never advocated stopping you from practicing.
The family vacation questioning should’ve been off-limits- it was intrusive and unecessary in determining if Pryor is fit for the job (my opinion- he’s not). And even though I think it’s irelevant to the confirmation, I still think that not wanting to take a 4 and 6 year old to Disneyworld during Gay Days seems to me as reasonable as not taking the family to Atlanta during Freaknik, or South Padre during Spring Break, or Sturgis during the Rally, etc… They’re big events that would probably cause hassles on a family vacation. I didn’t want to go downtown when the Promise Keepers were in town- does that make me anti-Promise Keeper?
DCU on one level I understand that none of the evidence is a smoking gun that Pryor’s a homophobe/anti-sex zealot/whatever and an argument can be made that he was vigorously defending Alabama’s laws which may not reflect his personal views. But as an aggregate it seems to me that his views and Alabama’s laws are in sync and I for one wouldn’t be comfortable with him as AG.
And not Pryor’s evasiveness about a plainly-pertinent aspect of his public character?
Do you have any clue what the RAGA story is? Pryor was the guiding light of an effort to circumvent campaign-funding laws, but under oath he claimed not to have an opinion about it? Who’s being “pig-headed” here? Your claim was about Feingold’s behavior, but he’s not the nominee up for a lifetime job here. Pryor is.
I’m glad you think that’s even more honest of me. But, given Pryor’s refusal to get into one of the most significant areas where he’d have to act on in that lifetime job, certainly it’s pertinent as well. What else does the Senate have to go on here?
No, I wouldn’t object to the question. Her answer to it would allow judgment of her objectivity on the subject. And no, friend, we do NOT “have to assume” what she thinks if she tells us, and doesn’t evade the question Pryor-style (or Estrada-style, or fill-in-any-stealth-nominee-style).
You still don’t get it. He should be disqualified for refusing to answer pertinent questions honestly.
At least as far as we go in our intolerance of dishonesty in our public officials, or in our intolerance of obtuse refusal to have one’s ignorance fought.
No, but I think most folks would agree it means you shouldn’t be hateful just because you disagree with someone. You basically said “because I disagree with you on certain things, I hope you never get to return to your family ever again.” Maybe “tolerance” was the wrong word to use, but your post certainly seems inconsistent with someone who opposes hatefulness.
I think you’re just hearing what you want to hear. I’ve been quite consistent in my position. A return to uncertainty is all I’ve argued for. I have no interest in defending a position which I never advocated.
Mojo: that is perfectly reasonable. If you want to say "his defense of these laws, plus a lot of other stuff makes me uncomfortable, that’s fine. It’s just saying his defense of the laws, standing alone, makes him unsuitable that I’m opposed to.
Another point, which has been skirted but never really addressed, is challenging Pryor on the legal arguments (as opposed to factual assertions) he makes in his briefs. It would be perfectly appropriate to ask Pryor about his theories of constitutional interpretation, and to ask him if argument X in one of his briefs reflects his view of how the constitution should be interpreted. Obviously, he should be asked about it rather than just relying on the brief alone – a lawyer certainly can, and often will, cite to a precedent whose logic he personally disagrees with – but that line of questioning would be perfectly appropriate.
My dismay that you’ll be practising law here may have been over the top rhetoric but it is not the same as wishing you never to return to your family here. That’s just asshattedness to suggest that I meant that.
I apologize for using overheated rhetoric in that case. However, I would be uncomfortable with you on the bench.
You expressed sorrow at my being able to ply my trade in Texas. That’s functionally the same as expressing sorrow at my returning to Texas (unless you would be happy at my returning as a welfare recipient). My family is in Texas. You do the math. **
If you would be uncomfortable with me on the bench because you generally dislike strict constructionism, fine. I take a narrow view towards constitutional interpretation and I make no bones about that. I have what I think are very good reasons for that view, reasons that have nothing to do with dislike of any particular interest group. I’ve explored those reasons ad nauseum in numerous threads, most notably with minty and Polycarp; I won’t hijack this thread with another rehashing of the problems with substantive due process, but I think anyone who’s participated in those discussions will tell you that homophobia has nothing to do with my position.
But if you’re suggesting that I would treat gay people differently than other litigants before me, then I think you’d better pony up some evidence for that assertion.
I’m also waiting to hear on what basis you feel I am not supportive of gay rights. As I’ve repeatedly noted, I wholeheartedly support the legislative repeal of laws such as the one struck down today. Just because I do not share your “by any means necessary” worldview does not make me unsupportive of gay rights.
Dewey, with all due respect, WTF!?! I’m the one “hearing what I want to hear”? Have you read your contributions to this four page thread and the prior five-page thread? Do you not realize how much emphasis you’ve placed on the “he’s doing his duty, no more, no less” position? How many times you’ve re-iterated it? How many actions of Pryor’s you’ve justified with that position? There are thousands of possible motives for Pryor’s various actions. You claim you simply want a return to uncertainty and yet you continually, and consistently,(and extremely vocally) advocate a particular interpretation of Pryor’s actions. How in hell is that a simple “return to uncertainty” as opposed to an alternative?
We’ve got a serious disconnect here. You say I’m hearing what I want, I say you’re not bothering to listen to yourself. I’ll agree to disagree.
Enjoy,
Steven