Lawrence v. Texas ought to serve that purpose quite nicely now.
Shodan, you really are being extra dim about this. I said the lawyer is obligated to withdraw from the case if his personal feelings would prevent him from zealously advocating his client’s position. Rather an important qualifier, isn’t it? Moreover, that is already the law in every jurisdiction I know of. Yet strangely, there’s no lack of lawyers for unpopular clients, is there?
Take that strawman and go sodomize yourself with it. I’ve said nothing of the kind. I do not lightly accuse people of intolerance. In fact, I’ve expressly defended Dewey against that charge in this very thread, and his poilitical positions are about as far removed as possible from “fanatic enthusiasm for whatever Democrats propose.” I accuse Pryor of intolerance because I believe his public and private record speaks of it in spades.
Are you telling us there’s no lack of lawyers with personal feelings? 
Erm, without them, that is? Never mind.
Just don’t do it anywhere around AG Pryor, especially if the strawman vibrates.
Look, if you guys hadn’t gone on for five pages asserting that there can be only one true meaning given to the defense of a puritanical law by a state AG, I wouldn’t have to keep pointing out that there is a perfectly plausible alternative explanation. So yeah, I’ve repeated that interpretation several times out of neccessity.
But if you review my posts you’ll see that I’ve been pretty darned consistent about also saying that is only a possible interpretation and that I refrain from outright endorsing either one. My position has always been a simple return to uncertainty.
I can only say that I’ve been consistent on this question and that my position remains precisely what I say it is. If you’re going to pull out your tea leaves and try to figure out what my “real” meaning is based on the amount of time I spend on one particular aspect of my position, then you’re just being pigheaded and ignorant. I’ve told you what my position is. I am not lying about it, nor do I subconsciously hold a different position. It is quite shitty of you to imply otherwise.
Look, if you can’t tell that your repeated “just doing his job” rhetoric with the occasional weasely “might have been ‘just doing his job’” equals an assertion that “he was just doing his job” then we’re at an impasse. FTR the former structure(without the qualifier) appears FAR more often than the one with the qualifier. Quite shitty of me to remind you of your own damn harping and ask you to prove what you were harping on about. Shitty. Sure thing.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’ve stated my position. Are you suggesting that I am lying?
Oh, and if you want a specific instance where you asserted that Pryor WAS simply acting from his obligation, then here you go.
Enjoy,
Steven
If you’ll look at the context in which I made that post, I think it’s reasonably clear that I was simply contesting the notion, set forth by Tejota, that it would be ethical for Pryor to simply drop the appeal.
But even if that isn’t totally clear, so what? OK, I could have written the post a little better. Whoopitie doo. That doesn’t mean I have to defend your misconception of what I’ve been saying. It only means I need to clarify what my position actually is. And I think I’ve done that, in spades.
Look, any doubts about the position I’ve been advocating have long since been cleared up. You have no excuse for claiming my position is anything other than what I’ve said it is: a return to uncertainty. It’s fairly pathetic that you keep claiming to know my “real” outlook in the teeth of my actually telling you precisely what my outlook is.
So here we go again. If you’re going to continue to accuse me of lying, I’d appreciate it if you’d just be up front about it rather than tiptoeing around the accusation. And if you aren’t, then please continue the discussion on the merits or shut the fuck up.
Obviously, we’re not Senators to address this, but based on your reading of what he has had to say to date, how would you evaluate his capabilities as an interpreter of the Constitution and his jurisprudential philosophy? I personally am inclined to see him as somebody who will twist things to support his own political views – but I’m ready to admit that this impression is formed largely by press reports that do have a negative slant towards him. Any comments you’d want to make on it?
Poly: The boards are so slow right now that it’ll take forever for me to track down Pryor’s brief and review it (it took six or seven minutes for this page to open). I’m going to bed after I push “submit.” Remind me later.
Dewey: When I made my first post mentioning your “he was only doing his duty” rhetoric being an assertion, that didn’t happen in a vacuum. The post I cited above is not unique. There are multipleplaces you used the unqualified “he’s just doing his job” style. Now you want to clarify and say those “weren’t totally clear” and “could have been written better”. Sure, no problem. Civilized debate allows us all to clarify poorly written points. Erase them, or pretend they didn’t happen, no. Clarify them, yes.
If you look at my first post mentioning “your position” as something other than “return to uncertainty” I was basing this on posts like the one cited above. You know, the “This isn’t a matter of what the AG wants personally” bit? You want to claim that you never advocated “anything more than a return to uncertainty” then your disclaimer of the above cited post as unclear is fine with me.
For the record, we are now at uncertainty.
Conclusive evidence that Pryor is a fine upstanding AG motivated by ethical obligations to his client with no anti-gay/anti-vibrator bias - zero.
Conclusive evidence that Pryor is a raving homophobe based on his performance of his job as AG - zero.
Enjoy,
Steven
So . . .er . . . do you keep them away from married couples as well? What about teenaged siblings who might be dating?
How hard is it to explain “These are two people who love each other” to a kid?