Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I've seen this sentiment many times, but, like your post, it always stops there, like we all KNOW, of course, what he did as AG that was so bad. I don't. I do know that he submitted a brief in one case that was horribly, hatefully homophobic, (and I've also seen evidence suggesting that that was his specific assignment), but that's about all I know. And I know I've had to submit briefs that do not exactly mirror my own philosophies in the past, so I can't just automaticaly buy into the idea that he submitted his own beliefs in that brief. Is that the main problem? What exactly has he done that has been so terrible, aside from that?
|
The Ignatz blog to which I referred, lately in stasis, is
here. (If you want to find it in the future, you can search Google for "Ignatz".) Some of his posts on Pryor are
here, referring to a quote from one of his briefs to the effect that it is rational for a state to decide that orgasms achieved with the help of a device are contrary to the public good;
here, concerning an amicus brief trying to exempt municipalities from federal legislation (he lost 9-0, with Scalia writing for the majority);
here, concerning a case in which Pryor argued that the Constitution permits prison guards to handcuff a prisoner to a "hitching post" with his arms raised above his shoulders for hours (the Court found not only a constitutional violation but no qualified immunity, suggesting he was not just wrong but really wrong);
here, relating a speech in which Pryor criticized Rehnquist for being politically correct;
here;
here;
here; and
here (linking to some earlier posts).
