Slog - Comments on Who Said That?

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:54:35 -0800

Sweet.

Comment by H

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:59:50 -0800

ROFLMAO

Comment by vooodooo84

vooodooo84 — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:02:54 -0800

Too bad it wasn't an arrest for cruising a gay bathouse. i suppose the demographics don't support all Republicans being gay

Comment by Mark at YVR

Mark at YVR — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:04:00 -0800

"...there is no protected right to engage in extrasexual - extramarital sexual relations, again, that can trace their roots to history or the traditions of this nation."

It may not be a protected right, but I can link extramarital sexual relations to married Federal Papers co-author Alexander Hamilton and Maria Reynolds. Not only that, but he paid off her husband with a job at the Treasury Department so he could keep banging her. Can't get too much more rooted in history than $10 Alexander.

Comment by Ziggity

Ziggity — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:04:31 -0800

@3: I think that's why I was so doubtful about the impact of the NYT McCain article . . . it hinted at a hetero affair.

Comment by Aislinn

Aislinn — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:04:51 -0800

Ugh. Jail time would be nice.

Comment by flamingbanjo

flamingbanjo — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:09:25 -0800

So a lawyer advocated for a position in court that runs contrary to his own ethical conduct in private life? Wow. I'll bet that hardly ever happens.

Comment by vooodooo84

vooodooo84 — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:11:18 -0800

@7 seems like it was his probably personal political position as well

Comment by vooodooo84

vooodooo84 — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:12:33 -0800

@8 flip "his" and "personal"

Comment by Andy Niable

Andy Niable — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:15:16 -0800

Oh but its SO MUCH MORE FUN when it's "nasty, dirty" and against the law...

Puritan Victorian Bliss.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:22:05 -0800

Is there no obligation, when arguing before the Supreme Court, to speak in comprehensible English? That's gibberish what he said there.

Comment by mattymatt

mattymatt — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:35:50 -0800

...a cartoon depicting an African-American suffering from a �fatal overdose� of watermelon and fried chicken

I would very much like to see how the artist chose to depict such a complex set of circumstances. Can anybody dig up the cartoon in question?

Comment by dbell

dbell — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:36:04 -0800

@8 then flip "personal" and "probably his." :)

Comment by Greg

Greg — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:39:49 -0800

@4: I thought the two blackmailed him to keep the story quiet. Then, when there were rumblings about corruption, he exposed the sex scandal and extortion to prove that he was a philanderer rather than a crook.

Comment by mattymatt

mattymatt — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:42:41 -0800

Hmm, this might be the image in question, though it's a photograph, not a cartoon. Somehow I doubt that it's completely un-posed.

http://rev-ree.blogspot.com/2006/08/fatal-overdose-in-downtown-detroit.html

Comment by Ugh

Ugh — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:52:50 -0800

I love how people make the argument that if something can't be traced directly back to the "history or traditions" of the US, suddenly it must be some horrible thing that can never have. I can't fucking trace anything about air travel or its applicable laws back to the founding of our country, but does that mean that no laws or regulation should have been passed when the airplane was invented?

Beyond that, what the fuck is wrong with people anyway?! People REALLY think it's ok to throw people in jail for their sexual activities? God I hope this man roasts in the firey pits of hell, but not until he's had his ass slammed a few thousand times in prison. Just think how much time all that gay sex should add to his sentence...

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:04:13 -0800

Those who preach against the sins of the world are usually the greatest sinners - both in the past and in the future.

For they think we are like them, yet don't realize that they're the problem, not us.

Comment by vooodooo84

vooodooo84 — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:17:24 -0800

Looks like i am now completely unqualified to speak before the supreme court

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:08:56 -0800

@18 - that's ok, Hils will let you speak. She's pretty good about that.

Comment by Todd

Todd — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:12:37 -0800

Here's to hoping he drops the soap.

Comment by L

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:34:31 -0800

a nudge to Ugh and Todd - sexual abuse in prison is a very real problem and a human rights violation that is considered to be torture by both US and international courts. Each year, thousands of men, women, and youth are hurt terribly when they are in the custody of our government agencies. And, LGBTQ prisoners are the group at the greatest risk for sexual assault.

Maybe we can heap crap on this nasty bigot without heaping that kind of crap.

Comment by Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:58:02 -0800

Not that the guy isn't a hypocritical douche, but I believe the city of Houston was legally obligated to argue in support of the law before the court. The District Attorney's job isn't to decide which laws should be enforced--it's to enforce all of them. Then again, they probably just thought Lawrence would pay the fine and this case would never go as far as it did.