ACRU

ACLU Supports the Right of Senators to Seek Sex in Airport Bathrooms

The facts for this comment, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article published in the Minnesota Monitor on 25 September.

The Minnesota prosecutors have filed their response to the plea by Senator Larry Craig’s attorneys filed in an effort to have his entered and accepted guilty plea withdrawn in the airport sex investigation arrest. Contrary to the Senator’s allegation that he was “rushed” or “pressured” to plead guilty, the reply notes that he pleaded guilty by mail. This allowed maximum time and opportunity for the Senator to consider whether to plead guilty to the lesser charge.

Also, the prosecutor who handled the case notes that he talked directly to the Senator several times at the Senator’s request. At no time, claims the prosecutor, did the Senator express any upset or concern about his guilty plea until after it had been accepted, put in place, but then was discovered by the national press.

Larry Craig’s effort to have his guilt struck from the record may fail on the record, and never get to a hearing. But, if there is a hearing, the Senator must be a witness to testify about his “misunderstanding,” or “pressure,” in making his plea. Among the questions this writer thinks the judge should act in such a hearing, are these: How long have you been a Member of the House, and then a Senator? While you were a Member of Congress, did you not participate actively and regularly in writing federal laws? Did you understand the laws you were writing over those decades? Did you experience times of pressure and urgency in that process?

And given the answers that the record shows Senator Craig must give to those questions, the last one is: Given your experience with law, and with pressure, how can you say without laughing that you could not handle the situation presented to you prior to your plea of guilt to a lesser charge?

The last interesting factor is that the ACLU sought to file an amicus curia brief in the trial court, supporting the position of Senator Craig. Trial courts generally are hostile to amicus briefs, unlike appellate courts which welcome them.

The fact that the ACLU has sought to file such a brief in this case indicates how strongly and consistently the ACLU supports the homosexual agenda at all opportunities – in cases concerning school programs, in a case concerning the North American Man-Boy Love Association in Massachusetts, and now in Minnesota, supporting the “right” of adult males to seek sexual relations with other males in a bathroom built at an airport for the ostensible purpose of relief for the traveling public, both men and boys.

The website listed below has a click link to all the pleadings in this case, filed both by the Senator and the State, if anyone cares to read the original documents.

Source for original story on the Net:

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2516