http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_on_re_us/craig_appeal

Hey Herb - the ACLU is once again helping one of your own.

Just like they did Jerry Falwell.

Does this still make them a Godless, Communist organization incapable of helping conservatives?

More insanity from the diabolical aclu, which now insists on privacy for sex acts in a PUBLIC bathroom. The aclu and Mr. Craig deserve each other.

Classic.

Herb

This is a double-edged sword for Craig.

If he sides with the ACLU, he may be able to have the conviction reversed, but he will be admitting that he was soliciting sex. Either way his career as an Idaho senator is toast. But maybe senator of California or Massachusetts...?

For what it's worth, the ACLU insists on bringing that argument to the courts, so that the legal question may be answered.

Remember, each case they participate in rests with somebody feeling their rights have been infringed. If we are to allow people to present a defense, these kinds of questions then are gonna get discussed.

In this case, it seems Craig has posed a defense that's novel and not yet framed in terms of constitutional law. That's gonna change now.

It could be that the verdict goes against him! Either way, the decision will then have been clarified and we all move on.

I much prefer that, than just passing judgement informally. And, for the record, I think they are likely on the wrong side on this one, but it will be interesting to see how that ruling goes.

So, what happens when the letter of the law is not clear? Can't have activist judges now can we? What's the alternative?

That's right, put the question to the courts and have it answered. The end result being the letter of the law more clear, right?

@Ed: Yeah, that's ugly! Not sure there is a possible good outcome.

Actually it should be pretty simple, Craig was on his way to an official function, congressmen are exempt from arrrest for misdomenears while on the way to official business.

While I believe that it should not be a crime to solicit another consenting adult for sex, either for free or for money, I do have a problem with it occurring in a public restroom. The picking up part is okay. It's the sex act itself that should be considered disorderly conduct. But, for perverts like Craig, public places are part of the excitement.

"...the ACLU insists on bringing that argument to the courts, so that the legal question may be answered."

Yeah, right. Some legal question. Like it's a dire need.

Not.

Just another bogus lawsuit that needlessly bogs down the courts. While the aclu prattles on their joke of a legal argument, our legal system wastes resources that should be spent on real issues.

Herb

It is a need!

If the question is not currently answered in the body of existing case law, then it needs an answer just like all the other questions did!

This is how we get case law. If we cannot pose un-posed questions in our courts, we cannot refine the law. Without that, it becomes static and unable to adapt to the times. We lose.

Imagine being stuck with 17th century law today, unable to build case law to work from!

You might consider the question useless, trivial, etc... I actually would agree! However, neither of us are in the courts right now, having to deal with our matters of freedom are we?

There is no having it both ways. Either we engage the process, for everyone always, or we don't.

This is how we get case law. If we cannot pose un-posed questions in our courts, we cannot refine the law. Without that, it becomes static and unable to adapt to the times. We lose.

B-i-n-g-o!

Personally, I like the idea that I can read the paper and evacuate without Big Brother watching or asking me to dance. I choose to use the bathroom for a traditional purpose, and it is my stall for those moments.

This is not merely about a Senator tapping like a neo-Jolson, this is about legal precedent. Do you want a nice man in a suit with a gun watching you pushing bowl biscuits and making sure that is the only thing you do in the biffy?

When the ACLU is having to fight for your lavatory rights, doesn't it strike you as a bit odd and surreal?

Is Terry Gilliam directing this picture?

Now, if they could win a fight to keep our public restrooms clean -- that would be heroic!

"...it needs an answer just like all the other questions did!"

I presume you wrote that with a straight face.

Would you not agree that there are a huge number of far more important 'unanswered' questions already on our plate? How about us addressing those first?

On a scale from 1 to 10, this issue wouldn't register above a 2 to most...except among those whose goal is to encourage sex acts in a public restroom. Not healthy for any society.

Sorry.

Herb

Actually, I think this issue brings up a couple of points that need to be resolved by the courts.

1. At what point can a police officer devine "intent" in making an arrest. In this case there was no actual solicitation, only some non verbal acts.

2. When is a confession, voluntary? He was embarressed, and the implication was if he didn't sign the ticket, he would be arrested.

It may be interesting to witness the process of case law and even salacious in this case. But as far as it being important, I'm not convinced yet. Then again, it's not important for me to think it's important.

I'm with Herb. I give it a 2. It's got a funky beat and I can dance to it.

" Actually, I think this issue brings up a couple of points that need to be resolved by the courts..."

If those specific points get addressed ( and it's my understanding that they won't ) then I'd like to amend my rating to a 3.14.

Pi, it is, in any best case scenario.

Herb

I'm there at 2 as well.

However, that's really not our business is it? I'm sure it's a 10+ with Craig, who happens to be involved in the matter.

For the rest of us, it is yet another case working through our courts.

I find the order of things point of view very interesting. How does that work exactly? Is it that our courts should only work on the 9's and 10's first? Does that work, even if there happen to be no cases at hand to work on?

Or, is it that we never waste time on a 2? Perhaps just pass judgement and move on to those 9's and 10's?

Then who decides? Craig is clearly interested in this one! Looks like Littlesongs is concerned about his biffy (SCA participant perhaps?) rights!

At some point, we just have to have the courts up and running --or do we? If we only pay attention to the 9's and 10's, do we shut it down for the rest, saving money?

Whose money and why?

I prefer cake!

SCA participant perhaps?

LMAO!

Actually, my "biffy" usage is more AOPA and EAA based. :0)

I think it is a "two" as well, I do not spend enough time on a "one" to be concerned about the loitering men in black.

"Is it that our courts should only work on the 9's and 10's first?"

Maybe not always, but this one is such a joke, it doesn't even pass the 'laugh' test.

And the next time democrats insist that republicans aren't fair-minded, realize that the vast majority of republicans want nothing to do with Mr. Craig or his ilk.

Given his actions both during and after his alleged misbehaviour, Mr. Craig has besmirched the office. And given what Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy have already done to it, that's saying a lot.

Herb

"I find the order of things point of view very interesting. How does that work exactly? Is it that our courts should only work on the 9's and 10's first? Does that work, even if there happen to be no cases at hand to work on?"

Agree - I find this annoying, and a weak position to take when contesting a court case or arrest. The position of "Don't the courts/police have better things to do?" is a dodge, not an argument, Justice is not a zero-sum game where a court decision on bathroom sex means a murderer will go free. C'mon...

(SCA? I don't get it. And I don't think I want to.)

Maybe not always?

Kind of grey Herb. Which is it --or is this something that must be discussed, as in we need to ask the questions in order to find out?

See where I'm headed with that?

"Maybe not always," as in, if the guy is disabled and enters the women's room by mistake, fine...make a court case.

But not if a guy like Craig wants to weasel his way out of an illicit sex plea deal.

This isn't difficult.

Herb

Whose to say that guy walking into the women's room isn't trying the same weasel? What if that guy was a total perv?

So, it's about the person being worth the court time?

I thought we presumed innocence until proven guilty.

Edselehr -- the SCA is the Society for Creative Anachronism. To my knowledge, it is essentially the medieval version of the Civil War reenactment crowd.

"I thought we presumed innocence until proven guilty."

Look. Craig copped a plea. He admitted his guilt. End of story.

Next case.

Herb

Well, he's trying to deal with that plea, which is a different matter.

Say he hadn't yet done that plea. Still feel the same way?

He did the plea.
If he hadn't, it still wouldn't pass the laugh test.

Like I've said, the aclu is like a broken clock, which is correct rarely. And this isn't a gay thing, either. Suggesting that there should be an expectation of privacy by ANYONE committing sex acts a PUBLIC bathroom is beyond ridiculous.

Herb

Craig was not arrested for having sex, but for soliciting it. Two guys or a guy and a girls having sex behind closed doors might pass muster with a court, but solicitation does not.

Fine.

Either way, the vast majority of Americans think this is the kind of courtroom shenanigans that needs to stop. Common sense should prevail.

Herb

Nwokie: "Actually it should be pretty simple, Craig was on his way to an official function, congressmen are exempt from arrrest for misdomenears while on the way to official business."

I thought this an interesting application of the language of the Constitution, so I did a little research. Here is the language from the document Nwokie refers to:

US Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 6, Clause 1:

"The Senators and Representatives...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same..."

And here is an annotation from Findlaw.com:

Privilege From Arrest

"This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. It does not apply to service of process in either civil or criminal cases. Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase 'treason, felony or breach of the peace' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege."

So this immunity from arrest applies to being arrested if sued in civil court. There is no immunity for criminal acts.

Thanks, Nwokie, you helped me clarify something for myself.

In my opinion, our congressmen should have no different legal standing than any citizen regarding alleged criminal acts, nor should they have a different health care system, either.

Herbert 'Populist' Huckabee

Very true!
We agree on something....

The HUCKster is toast.....

Me thinks thou dost protesteth too much.

Herbert Huckabee

"the vast majority of Americans think this is the kind of courtroom shenanigans that needs to stop. Common sense should prevail."

And your support for "vast majority" is?

(Serious really, not just pushing it.)

And whose common sense?

It's common sense that a public bathroom is public, not private.

If democrats can't grasp that, they're worse off than even I thought.

Herb

Hey, don't take it personal. I've a genuine interest that does not tie back to "ACLU is [insert opinion]".

If it's public, why are there doors on the stalls? Or, sometimes there are no doors, so what does that mean legally?

IMHO, if there is a door, there is some expectation of privacy. For example, it's not legal to film the stalls. We've seen several cases on that, with clear rulings. So, it's kind of private.

(I don't know of a case where there were no doors, and filming --would be interesting.)

The bathroom may well be public, but the stall area may well have some private properties. It is these kinds of things that generate the "frivolous" questions.

Herb, you are building strawmen.

No one is arguing for the right to have sex out in the open in a public restroom. The ACLU brief cites a 38-year old Minnesota court ruling that says in a stall with the door closed, people have an expectation of privacy. Could be defecation, could be personal intimate inspection, could even be the "hand jive", but the state has no business investigating your actions while in there, with the door closed.

Therefore, the ACLU is arguing that the police have no right to be performing a sting operation of this type because they have no right to be looking for that kind of behavior in that private location. And if the investigation is invalid, then the arrest is invalid, which means the conviction is invalid.

Next time lets read past the headline (as I should have done before my earlier posts).

I would assume that means a plea would also be invalid as there would be no charge of substance to plea to.

BTW: That question has very significant legal precident concerns. "Expectation of Privacy" is something we don't really want narrowed any more than we need to.

I'm thinking a picture of the troll sitting on the potty in a public restroom posted on internet will result in 1) a jump from #2 to #10, and 2) his attorney calling the ACLU asking for guidance.

My Eyes! My Eyes! Make It Stop!

Government sources say that he really ought to lay off those deviled eggs and crabcakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nplMndlEVkg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fzXEwj-3z4

Classic democrat spin.
Defend the indefensible, whilst ignoring reality and common sense.

Herb

Dude, you've not demonstrated it's indefensible, nor have you established "common sense".

Sorry. Got better things to do.

The only place you should expect privacy, is in your own home.

Sadly, that's an opinion, not really the law.

Where in the constitution does it say that?

It's built up on case law, based on the Constitution. Here's a nice bit that shows how it works:

http://www.notbored.org/privacy.html

It is clear that expectation goes beyond one's home. What is not clear, is that expectation extending to a bathroom stall. We are gonna get some more case law to answer that shortly!