The latest in the Larry Craig saga

[Cleon]

Craig's lawyers are now arguing that the foot-tapping is protected by the First Amendment.

That just made my week, right there.

 

[PitPat]

First off, I do believe that Craig was looking for a little layover fun. But I can't say it's a bad legal strategy. Challenging the law on Constitutional free speech grounds makes some sense. Foot-tapping and hand gestures are pretty weak foundations for disorderly conduct and the statute could be abused by law enforcement to no end. Physically crossing the barrier between stalls, eh, maybe a case could be made there, I don't know. Still feels sorta nitpicky.

Doesn't matter, he pleaded guilty already, and no wrangling can reverse that no matter how important your job appears to be. He should have done what every informed citizen should do in that situation: request an attorney and then remain silent. So he made his bed.

 

[davefoc]

I agree with PitPat that there are ambiguities in this situation and at the time of the incident I pondered whether the law was actually constitutional and whether the law was appropriate.

My thought then and now:
People having sexual encounters in public bathrooms is inappropriate and should be illegal.

If the procedures that were used against Craig were necessary to enforce prohibition of sexual encounters in public bathrooms then the law was appropriate in this case and I believe it would be judged constitutional.

As it stands now, Craig, is just acting like an idiot. He's not going to run again, the result of this appeal will have no bearing on how people perceive the incident that he was arrested for and it serves to keep his name in the public as a national joke. My suggestion to Mr. Craig (I'm sure he's a regular reader of the JREF forum) is, "Let this thing drop. Oh and by the way it is major league scummy to be using your campaign contributions for this nonsense".

ETA: At the time I also surmised that a vigorous skillful defense might commonly result in not guilty verdicts to this kind of prosecution, but that the pain and expense of a skillful, vigorous defense against the charges was probably significantly more than just paying the fine and that the vast majority of people indicted would just pay the fine and walk away. There is something a little unsettling about that in that it provides opportunities for proprietorial abuse, but many things aren't perfect and this kind of approach to preventing sexual encounters in public bathrooms is just another one of them.

 

[pgwenthold]

I agree with PitPat that there are ambiguities in this situation

There may be ambiguities with the law (although not as many as some would like to think - there are weaker aspects), but there is no ambiguity about what went on, Craig's protestations notwithstanding. PitPat is correct in that matter - he was looking for some fun.

Either that or he has really bizarre normal bathroom behavior. I don't think anyone believes that ("wide stance" ? Seriously? Next time you are in a bathroom stall, try to envision how you would have to sit on the can to get your feet to wander under the partition. Then imagine how you would act should tp fall on the floor near the partition. See if that has anything to do with what Craig claimed)

 

[LibraryLady]

What amazes me that is he is the one who won't let this die. He keeps bringing it back into the public forum. It's like having a sore and picking at the scab. You know you'll cause and infection, but you just can't help yourself.

 

[cwalner]

I kinda hope he succeeds on the 1st ammendment issue. If he does, I'll name my favorite glory-hole after him.

I don't think he has a chance, though. As I understand it, a defendant waives his right to appeal with a guilty plea, so he has no right to appeal, even if he has grounds.

That said, I think senator Craig actually believes himself to be not guilty. In this case, I do not see his guilty pleas as an honest admission of guilt. He knew that if he didn't plead out, the trial would become public and he wanted to avoid that at all costs. Once the incident became public anyway, he figured he would fight it, thinking as many of our illustreous leaders do, that the laws they pass do not apply to them.

 

[Beerina]

Foot tapping, as communication, should be covered by the first ammendment.

But asking "Would you like to illegally have sex in this bathroom with me?" as part of an ongoing process of actually having sex would be illegal, so why not this?



Of course, that's within the current rulesystem. Personally, I don't care what people do, and this isn't a problem except that its prurience appeals to voters, so politicians ride to the "rescue".

 

[corplinx]

Larry Craig. He's in bigger denial than..... Hmm. No, I think he's more in denial that anyone on the planet. Even Matt Damon.

 

[cwalner]

Larry Craig. He's in bigger denial than..... Hmm. No, I think he's more in denial that anyone on the planet. Even Matt Damon.

I was about to counter this by saying that Sarah Silverman is ****ing Matt Damon, but then realized that didn't prove anything.

 

[godofpie]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/craig.plea/
The court DENIED Craig's appeal. I thought his whole argument was that he "had a wide stance" and wasn't trying to communicate with the undercover cop? Didn't this argument fly in the face of his defense? "Well judge, it's like this. I'm a big guy. I've got a wide stance, see? If my foot did tap that undercover officer, it was an accident, I was not trying to communicate that I wanted (insert homosexual sex act here) but just in case I did communicate that I wanted ( insert homosexual sex act here) that is covered under my 1st amendment rights, but like I said, I wasn't trying to communicate anything."

 

[Darth Rotor]

I was about to counter this by saying that Sarah Silverman is ****ing Matt Damon, but then realized that didn't prove anything.

If Matt is in denial, and thus in her due to the asterisked verb, what are you trying to tell us about Ms Silverman?

Riverine? Blue and White?

Mixed signals, request clarification.

@ Cleon: the headline I saw says "Craig Loses His Appeal."

I didn't care much for him in the first place, ba dump, tsch! Tip your waitress.