Craig's foot taps 'constitutionally protected,' ACLU says

C

Cypress

Well-known member
By my count, the so-called "liberal" ACLU has sided with Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Larry "widestance" Craig, and former congressman Bob Barr (of clinton impeachment fame). Just to name a few cons.

I wish ACLU would get back to being liberal partisan hacks. :rolleyes:


Craig's foot taps 'constitutionally protected,' ACLU says

One of the nation's oldest advocates of civil rights has come to the defense of alleged bathroom-sex-soliciting Sen. Larry Craig, saying his foot tapping and hand waving in an airport restroom do not provide enough evidence that he was going to engage in sexual activity in public.

The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the Minneapolis airport police sting aimed at preventing public sex in its restrooms. The ACLU filed a "friend of the court" brief Monday arguing that Craig should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge and fight the case because police failed to prove he attempted to engage in sexual activity in public.

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Craigs_foot_taps_are_constitutionally_protected_0917.html
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
By my count, the so-called "liberal" ACLU has sided with Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Larry "widestance" Craig, and former congressman Bob Barr (of clinton impeachment fame). Just to name a few cons.

I wish ACLU would get back to being liberal partisan hacks. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They're defending him because the issue is far bigger than Larry Craig. It's about protecting gays.
 
I said, long ago, that I was surprised nobody had fought this as unconstitutional and even suggested that the ACLU may want to take a look as the law specifically targets a protected group. I was told that they wouldn't supposedly because it is Larry Craig.
 
This is going to be funny, because I suspect Tapper has made a career out of bashing the ACLU. So, I'm sure he won't accept their help. :rolleyes:

Surely, Jerry Falwell's Regents University Law School puts out some fine lawyers, on a par with ACLU lawyers? Perhaps Tapper will tap a Regents University lawyer, and blow off help from the hated ACLU?
 
Damocles said:
I said, long ago, that I was surprised nobody had fought this as unconstitutional and even suggested that the ACLU may want to take a look as the law specifically targets a protected group. I was told that they wouldn't supposedly because it is Larry Craig.
Click to expand...


They're is nothing they can really do. He pleaded guilty.
 
Dungheap said:
They're is nothing they can really do. He pleaded guilty.
Click to expand...
They can fight the law based on the constitutionality of it, even with a plea they can show that such charges may even cause the innocent to plead guilty, or people to plead to charges they never could have been convicted of. Seriously, there are myriad paths they can take with this.
 
Damocles said:
They can fight the law based on the constitutionality of it, even with a plea they can show that such charges may even cause the innocent to plead guilty, or people to plead to charges they never could have been convicted of. Seriously, there are myriad paths they can take with this.
Click to expand...


No, they can't. They have no standing. Craig would have to have his guilty plea rescinded. Then plead not guilty. Then file a motion to dismiss. At most they could help him with the motion to dismiss or file an amicus brief. That presupposes all of the other stuff happens, which isn't likely.

Maybe if the law he was charged with breaking were facially invalid they may be able to do something, but all indications are that the argument is that the law is unconstitutional as applied.
 
Dungheap said:
No, they can't. They have no standing. Craig would have to have his guilty plea rescinded. Then plead not guilty. Then file a motion to dismiss. At most they could help him with the motion to dismiss or file an amicus brief. That presupposes all of the other stuff happens, which isn't likely.

Maybe if the law he was charged with breaking were facially invalid they may be able to do something, but all indications are that the argument is that the law is unconstitutional as applied.
Click to expand...
Or they could simply wait for the next poor bloke and fight it with them. My point is the law, not Larry Craig. There are myriad paths they can take to get an unconstitutional law rescinded or ruled against in the courts.

BTW - He is already trying to get his guilty plea rescinded, so presuming that it cannot and will not happen is only presumption. There is a possibility, such things have happened in the past.
 
Damocles said:
I said, long ago, that I was surprised nobody had fought this as unconstitutional and even suggested that the ACLU may want to take a look as the law specifically targets a protected group. I was told that they wouldn't supposedly because it is Larry Craig.
Click to expand...

I agree. I've thought that through this whole "scandal".
 
Umm won't he have to admit to communicating with his foot taps in gay communication code for it to be protected as free speech ?
 
uscitizen said:
Umm won't he have to admit to communicating with his foot taps in gay communication code for it to be protected as free speech ?
Click to expand...
That isn't the argument he is using, that is somebody else's.

Anyway, yes if he was making the argument of free speech he would need to admit that.

I personally couldn't care less about who he is, I just look at the law and the fact of society today. People feel the need to hide their proclivity, and in doing so have now become targets for police action against them specifically, I find this to be wrong regardless of who got caught.

Is the law just? I don't believe that it is. Do you?
 
uscitizen said:
I support laws that prevent sex of anytype in public restrooms.
Click to expand...
That prevent them from even contacting each other in such a place? What if they want to go someplace private? Like that poor guy who simply asked the other guy if he could go to his house? Seriously, these laws specifically target one group unjustly.
 
Damocles said:
They can fight the law based on the constitutionality of it, even with a plea they can show that such charges may even cause the innocent to plead guilty, or people to plead to charges they never could have been convicted of. Seriously, there are myriad paths they can take with this.
Click to expand...

They could go defend someone else, true.

But the case is settled. It's like running in to join the team that fought Brown vs. Board of education - the court decision is over, and there's no more litigative paths.

This was, apparently, just a notice in support of him. It was likely meant as an ironic way to embarrass him. But they'd still defend him, if for no other reason than to open his mind.
 
Oh, OK. They filed a motion in support of his decision to rescind his guilty plea. They aren't even necessarily saying that the law is unconstitutional - just that him tapping his foot was "insufficient evidence".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top