Huh. OK. Doesn't seem like the best use of the AG's time. Still funny that enforcing current law is characterized as "imposing his morality on us!!1"
No, it does not seem like the best use of the AG's time. And that is a legitimate concern. Time spent on an anti-pornography campaign is time not spent on other activities.
And yes, it would be accurately characterized as imposing his morality on us. "Pornography" has numerous grey areas. It is fairly obvious that "hardcore" porn is porn. What about pictures of nekkid folks? Tasteful nekkid folks? Not tasteful nekkid folks? Medical journals? How do you write up the EXACT legal definition to cover the situation?
Of course, that's a trick question. Pornography laws, with exceptions of certain categories (involving nonconsent, etc), are properly not valid as the federal government has no standing to limit freedom of speech, which covers written and artistic works. Even commercial ones. Just because a law was passed does not mean it holds water under the Constitution. More than a few laws are ignored by the executive and judicial branches because they KNOW it won't hold water, too hard to enforce, will make them look like a laughing stock, politically incorrect to enforce, etc. Use taxes, Robo-Signing, illegal immigration, etc.
Of course, SCOTUS does not always rule in favor of the Constitution either, and is not particularly loath to invent legal doctrine out of thin air. Categories of judicial review were invented in 1938, and basically determine how easily a Constitutional right can be infringed. Korematsu v. United States "legalized" internment. Dred Scott v. Sandford "legalized" slavery.
So yes, intentionally enforcing laws historically not enforced is a deliberate political statement.
No. I'm guessing, he don like 'em?
Playing to the evangelical vote, that cares a lot more about dirty pictures than contraception.
No, he does not like libertarians, and sees them as contrary to the interests of the Republican Party specifically and the United States generally. Yes, he is playing the religious (not just evangelical) vote. But you misunderstand him. He believes what he says. That is what makes him more of a concern than the average politician.
"Nothing worse than a monster who thinks he's right with God." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds
While obviously, Mr Santorum is not a monster. But he does honestly, no kidding, believe his beliefs are absolute right and all contrary beliefs are absolute wrong. And that God would directly back his beliefs. Thus he does believe any violations of the law and the Constitution in implementing his beliefs upon the citizenry would be valid. He's not stupid, he was a career politician. But anything he could implement, he would.
