Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I question whether, when a State's Attorney General is an elected official (rather than a cabinet appointee of a Governor) -- which I believe to be the case in Alabama -- the Attorney General ever receives "specific assignments" or in a practical sense even truly works for the Governor.
Also -- given Judge Pryor's publicly-avowed devout religious beliefs and his vehement opposition to abortion, there seems to be little reason to doubt that his decision to file an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas urging that Texas' anti-sodomy law be upheld (which brief was joined only by two other states) reflected his own opinions and desire to protect Alabama's anti-sodomy law.
I also see no reason to doubt that the language of the brief written by his office, which apparently argued that if one could not forbid homosexual sex, then one also could not forbid necrophilia, pedophilia, beastiality, etc., etc. reflects his own (mistaken) beliefs -- unless you think the Governor was editing over his shoulder.
S_A_M
|
Without getting into the detail of his brief, in a country where 50% of the popualtion is anti-abortion and even more is anti gay rights, is it surprising that an occasional member of one or the other group is nominated for Judge?
How can either be a litmus test?
The man was being an advocate, does that mean he cannot rule impartially?
