jdobbin Posted October 27, 2007 Author Report Posted October 27, 2007 Craig will now try to fight his case using the Constitution. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21496482/ Idaho Sen. Larry Craig will argue before an appeals court that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a bathroom sex sting, according to a new court filing.This is the first time Craig's attorneys have raised that issue. However, an earlier friend-of-the-court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Craig's foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. Craig has been trying to withdraw his August guilty plea to disorderly conduct. A judge turned him down earlier this month, and now Craig is taking his request to the state Court of Appeals. The conservative Republican at one point said he would resign from the U.S. Senate but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009. I wonder if the Senator will consider running again in the next election. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 Even if the Senator were 'coming on' to the undercover cop, I don't understand why what he did would be against the law. Since when is it against the law for one adult to hit on another? He wasn't forcing himself on the cop, the cop was responding. Had he not responded to the Senator's alleged overtures, one has to assume that would have been the end of it. So what's the big deal? I really don't get it. Quote
jdobbin Posted October 27, 2007 Author Report Posted October 27, 2007 (edited) Even if the Senator were 'coming on' to the undercover cop, I don't understand why what he did would be against the law. Since when is it against the law for one adult to hit on another? He wasn't forcing himself on the cop, the cop was responding. Had he not responded to the Senator's alleged overtures, one has to assume that would have been the end of it. So what's the big deal? I really don't get it. Craig was arrested for lewd behaviour and disorderly conduct which covers a wide spectrum of activities. The lewd behavior in this matter would have been the tapping of the feet and hand signals under the stall which were not initiated by the cop. The disorderly conduct charge stemmed from loitering and disruptive behaviour. Craig could have won his case had he not pleaded guilty. The charges are difficult to prove and open to interpretation. However, once he pleaded guilty, it will be difficult for the Senator to argue the constitutional merits of his case when he himself has defended those aspects of the law over the course of his career. Edited October 27, 2007 by jdobbin Quote
Shakeyhands Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 Even if the Senator were 'coming on' to the undercover cop, I don't understand why what he did would be against the law. Since when is it against the law for one adult to hit on another? He wasn't forcing himself on the cop, the cop was responding. Had he not responded to the Senator's alleged overtures, one has to assume that would have been the end of it. So what's the big deal? I really don't get it. Its not against the law to do that, nor is it against the law to come on to a member of the same sex. The issue arises out of trying to engage in this behaviour in public. Just the same as if it had been a straight couple. The area had been targetecd because of previous issues, no doubt that the Senator knew about this alleged activity, hence his actions in trying to engage in such conduct. As far as what he did or rather does, I don't think anyone cares if he wishes to engage in homosexual activity, but it should not take place in public anymore than hetero sex in public. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
jdobbin Posted December 4, 2007 Author Report Posted December 4, 2007 The latest on Senator Craig. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...03?hub=Politics Eight men say they either had sex with Sen. Larry Craig or were targets of sexual advances by the Idaho lawmaker at various times during his political career, a newspaper reported.One of the men is the former escort whose allegations disgraced the Rev. Ted Haggard, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Idaho Statesman reported Sunday. The newspaper identified four men and reported details of the encounters they say involved Craig. It also reported the accounts of four other men who did not agree to be identified but who described sexual advances or encounters involving the conservative Republican, who opposes same-sex marriage and has a strong record against gay rights. Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after being accused by an undercover officer of soliciting sex at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport and later called a news conference to deny that he is gay. The newspaper acknowledged that its report was not based on definitive evidence but said it also found no evidence to disprove the accounts of the four identified men. It said it reviewed the senator's travel records, which put him where the sex is alleged to have taken place, and did background checks on those making the allegations. I guess no one should be surprised that there have been more announcements on liaisons. Quote
guyser Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 The latest on Senator Craig.I guess no one should be surprised that there have been more announcements on liaisons. ..and not surprised he blamed the media for the new allegations. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 The latest on Senator Craig.http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...03?hub=Politics I guess no one should be surprised that there have been more announcements on liaisons. Technically, "announcements" should be "allegations." Just because someone makes a claim doesn't make it true. I'm not saying it's not true, but at the same time I think public figures are open to these kind of allegations by people seeking their 15 minutes of fame. So until we know if these allegations are true, I think we should be careful not to perceive them as fact. Quote
jdobbin Posted December 4, 2007 Author Report Posted December 4, 2007 (edited) Technically, "announcements" should be "allegations." Just because someone makes a claim doesn't make it true. I'm not saying it's not true, but at the same time I think public figures are open to these kind of allegations by people seeking their 15 minutes of fame. So until we know if these allegations are true, I think we should be careful not to perceive them as fact. I have no problem with that. We'll see if these allegations are true or can be proved. The Idaho Statesman is its report admitted as much that they could only confirm the times and places of where the Senator was but nothing about the activities. Perhaps the Senator will run again in 2008 to fight these allegations. They said on MSNBC the other day that he seems reluctant to leave the Senate despite pressure on him from fellow Republicans. Edited December 4, 2007 by jdobbin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.