Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SLD · 04-11-2003, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I can hardly wait for the Judiciary Committee to notice this:

Willaims v Pryor

Orgasms are detrimental to the health and morality of the State? That's unAmerican!! He's clearly unfit!

Damn straight Toto. We can't have women having orgasm, they might enjoy it and then the whole fabric of society will collapse!! We all know how women are subject to witchcraft and seduction if they are not kept on a tight leash. We should return to the days of the Puritans, the real Americans. We should even adopt female circumcision that'll stop the sale of those evil devices.

:banghead: :banghead:

SLD

Jewel · 04-11-2003, 09:25 AM

Ugg. Who is this man -- W. K. Kellogg????

Stephen Maturin · 04-11-2003, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Orgasms are detrimental to the health and morality of the State?

And the court of appeals bought it:

Quote:

The Alabama statute making it a criminal offense to commercially distribute sexual devices in the State is rationally related to the State's legitimate government interest in public morality.

:banghead: I know it's brutally difficult to get a statute shot down under the rational basis test, but god damn! Looks to me like the Eleventh Circuit is plenty screwed up even without Pryor.

But hey, at least the court left open the possibility of successful "as applied" challenges. The depos after remand must have been one helluva mess. I picture the transcripts looking something like this:

"Q: Mrs. Haggermaker, please describe in detail how you and your husband incorporate these devices into your lovemaking.

"PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Objection. I would like the record to reflect that counsel for the AG is rubbing his crotch in apparent anticipation of the answer. Go ahead.

"THE WITNESS: Well, it varies quite a bit.

"Q: Well then, describe any particular instance.

"A: Okay. Well, one night last week I did myself up the cooter with the sixteen-inch dildo while my husband did me up the ol' dirt trail with his Johnson. At the time he was wearing the cock ring and using the vibrating butt plug as intended. After I climaxed I figured that one good turn deserves another, so I had him get on all fours and did him up the ass with the strap-on. We only have the one set of nipple clamps, so we had to switch off with those.

"Q: Did your husband climax during this session?

"A: Yeah. I gave him a reach-around while cornholing him with the strap-on."

That'd give Pryor the opportunity to argue that only the use of sexual devices that's constitutionally protected is use of devices designed to facilitate vaginal intercourse in the missionary position, with specific intent to procreate and within the bonds of holy matrimony, i.e., sex as the Lord intended it to be within the geographic boundaries of a Christian nation.

Christ. The Supreme Court's gotta overrule that Bowers case.

Edited to add: I tracked down the trial court's opinion on remand. The judge tordepoed the dildo law again, this time on as-applied grounds. Chalk one up for the good guys.

SLD (or anyone else), do you know whether Pryor is appealing again?

Toto · 04-11-2003, 10:45 AM

Ha - but on remand, the District Court seems to still be unconvinced that the State of Alabama should be regulating its citizens' orgasms.

Opinion in pdf format

Quote:

Plaintiffs have submitted a great deal of unrefuted evidence to demonstrate that the Alabama statute at issue contravenes the �user� plaintiffs� fundamental constitutional right to privacy. That evidence has convinced this court that there exists a substantial history, legal tradition, and contemporary practice of deliberate state non-interference in the private, consensual, sexual relationships of married persons and unmarried adults. The ultimate result is that plaintiffs have shown that the fundamental right of privacy, long-recognized by the Supreme Court as inherent among our constitutional protections, incorporates a right to sexual privacy. Plaintiffs also have shown that this Nation�s history, tradition, and contemporary treatment of sexual devices themselves evidences that this right of sexual privacy, even in its narrowest form, protects plaintiffs� use of sexual devices like those targeted by Alabama Code � 13A-12-200.2(a)(1). Accordingly, plaintiffs assert that the challenged statute impermissibly infringes their right to sexual privacy, insofar as the statute burdens the user plaintiffs� right to employ sexual devices within their private, adult, consensual, sexual relationships.

(dated 10-10-2002)

Toto · 05-05-2003, 12:56 PM

Bush judicial nominee's brief draws comparisons to Santorum's

Quote:

A nominee for a federal judgeship filed a Supreme Court brief that compares homosexual acts to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia."

The brief by Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, nominated by President Bush to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, resembles comments about the same Texas sodomy case by Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

Pryor's "friend of the court" brief was filed Feb. 18, two months before Santorum - the Senate's third-ranking Republican - compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery in an interview with The Associated Press.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat on the Judiciary Committee that will consider Pryor's nomination, called the brief "another red flag for a nominee who is starting out with a troubling record."

"It's hard to believe that, in the entire state of Alabama, the administration can't find a conservative to nominate who isn't out of the mainstream and doesn't make incendiary comments," Schumer said.

SLD · 05-05-2003, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Ha - but on remand, the District Court seems to still be unconvinced that the State of Alabama should be regulating its citizens' orgasms.

Opinion in pdf format

(dated 10-10-2002)

Well, the statute is now unconstitutional, but the other day the Alabama Legislature refused to remove it from the books.

:banghead:

SLD

Toto · 05-05-2003, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLD
Well, the statute is now unconstitutional, but the other day the Alabama Legislature refused to remove it from the books.

:banghead:

SLD

I read a story on that. Apparently with the provision on vibrators in it, the entire law on obscenity is unconstitutional (or maybe just too ludirous to enforce.) The legislator who introduced the billl to remove it had the motive of rescuing the rest of the obscenity statute - so voting to remove the ban on vibrators would have resurrected the obscenity statute. I can see why the Leg might have refused to vote that way.

BibleBelted · 05-06-2003, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Superbad
Looks like you hippies didn't get the memo.

BUSH FLEW A PLANE!!!

Could Clinton do that?!?! I don't think so!

Sorry to have to interject this here - just thought somebody needed to elucidate the Republican position, and I think Mr. Superbad has summed it up perfectly.

Any of you pinkocommielibs want to argue with this!

Jewel · 05-06-2003, 10:43 AM

BibleBelted,

I cannot tell what that has to do with this discussion.....

Toto · 05-06-2003, 11:19 AM

Bible Belted was trying to point out that Bush can do what ever he wants (re judicial appointments) because he can fly a big plane.

Just cause he wimped out of the Vietnam War and went AWOL on his national guard service, doesn't mean that he can't project an image that will fool enough of the people enough of the time so he can pack the courts with southern conservatives with bizarre ideas about sex.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2003, 09:25 AM	#12
Jewel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Northern Virginia, USA Posts: 1,112	Ugg. Who is this man -- W. K. Kellogg????

05-06-2003, 10:43 AM	#19
Jewel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Northern Virginia, USA Posts: 1,112	BibleBelted, I cannot tell what that has to do with this discussion.....

05-06-2003, 11:19 AM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Bible Belted was trying to point out that Bush can do what ever he wants (re judicial appointments) because he can fly a big plane. Just cause he wimped out of the Vietnam War and went AWOL on his national guard service, doesn't mean that he can't project an image that will fool enough of the people enough of the time so he can pack the courts with southern conservatives with bizarre ideas about sex.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.