It says especially for coffee, but I imagine tea and alcohol (and mayhap a bit of the sacrament) qualify.

Given you're previous postings on matters unrelated to this topic, I'm under the assumption that you're probably too young to have any contemporaneous knowledge of the case of Mumia Abu-Kamal, who was first tried for and convicted of the Dec. 1981 murder of a Philadelphia police officer more than 30 years ago. While there is little doubt that Abu-Jamal was at the crime scene, the circumstances resulting in the death of Officer Daniel Faulkner have never been adequately answered to my own satisfaction to this very day.

Further, it should be noted that Abu-Jamal was also president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists and a member of the Black Panthers. And I'm not talking about those two guys of the New Black Panthers who regularly gets trumped up as something of a national security threat by Fox News.

Rather, he was a member of the original Black Panther party, whose members had in fact been singled out by local, state and federal law enforcement on numerous occasions for persecution throughout the 1970s because of their perceived political radicalism.

So it's not at all a stretch to consider the possibility that he had been railroaded by the prosecution. And to be fair, it must also be noted that the defendant really did himself no favors with his own disruptive behavior at his 1982 trial, in which he first attempted to defend himself before counsel was assigned to him.

There were many public rallies held in numerous cities and towns across the country in support of Abu-Jamal because there were a number of very troubling and worrisome aspects relating to the reliability and veracity of certain key witnesses for the prosecution, and the case had become political.

And please don't get me started on the behavior back then of the Philadelphia police department, which in 1985 had actually planned and carried out an aerial firebombing of the dissident organization MOVE, which ended up leveling nearly an entire city block, destroying 65 homes and resulting in the deaths of six adults and five children, all of whom were African American.

Finally, please remember that you're posting on a blog that's both owned and run by a defense attorney. At the very least, you should show a little healthy respect for what she does.

Three months ago, John Errol Ferguson was executed for one of the worst mass murders in Florida's history. After tricking his way into a woman's home, he eventually bound, blindfolded and shot eight people. Six of them died. While under indictment for those crimes, Ferguson murdered two teenagers on their way to church.

Ferguson might have been executed earlier, but his attorneys, one of whom was later rewarded with a position of unparalleled influence in the U.S. government, argued Ferguson was mentally ill and dragged out the process for years.

Now as I said Roberts was not someone who Democratic voters wanted on the Supreme Court but I don't recall any effort like what was pitted against Adegbile to damn him for defending a mass murderer.

On Fox News, Adegbile has been called a "cop killer coddler." The conservative Washington Times ran a caricature of Adegbile with the words "cop killer" that Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said was "reminiscent of the racist iconography of late 19th century America." Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick said the NAACP LDF's representation of Abu-Jamal "made a mockery of the jury's verdict and the court's sentence." Katie Pavlich, a columnist at the conservative website Townhall, wrote: "Through his extensive work at the NAACP [sic] and in arguments before the Supreme Court, Adegbile has made it clear he does not believe civil rights apply to whites."

Why people of both political parties should want this type of character assassinations of defense lawyers to stop:

"There's actually a stronger case here to identify (Adgebile) with the client because there's more discretion about how to represent in these post-conviction proceedings," says Steve Lubet, an expert in legal ethics and a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. At the same time, he says, "when you're challenging a sentence on appeal, you're not endorsing the client, you're trying to make sure the sentence is lawful and appropriate. Nobody benefits when sentences are imposed inappropriately, and the only way to make sure that doesn't happen is to have everyone represented by capable lawyers."
...
...former assistant U.S. Attorney. John Dixon, President of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, wrote that "[t]he attacks on Mr. Adegbile's character for upholding one's constitutional rights are troubling. To take away one's right to a proper defense because of the act committed, is against the constitutional oath that we as law enforcement officials have sworn to protect and defend."

Adegbile is likely not the last attorney to be nominated by either party who will face scrutiny and opposition based on having represented a hated client. It's a partisan game that Geyh, the Indiana University professor, said should stop.

    9. On January 28, 2011, your colleague Christina A. Swarns, who appears with you on two LDF Supreme Court briefs on which you are counsel of record, stated at a rally for Mr. Abu-Jamal that "there is no question in the mind of anyone at the Legal Defense Fund that the justice system has completely and utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal and in our view, that has everything to do with race and that is why the legal defense fund is in this case."

     a. Does Ms. Swarns's claim that the "justice system...completely and utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal in [LDF's] view" refer to LDF's prior allegations of a culture of racial discrimination in the Philadelphia County District Attorney's Office?

    ANSWER: Ms. Swarns was counsel of record on the aforementioned briefs; I was not. I am not familiar with Ms. Swarns' comments and am not aware of the context in which they were offered. I do not know what Ms. Swarns had in mind when she made the comment.

As for Adegbile, I never made any comment regarding his fitness for the court. (You might want to reread the thread to confirm that.) My one and only reference to Adegbile was in pointing out that you made a false statement about him speaking on behalf of his client at public protests.

The opinions to which you are objecting speak to the rationale by which Adegbile's nomination was rejected.  As I stated in a reply to a comment you made to me, I respect everyone's right to express an opinion, but I am under no obligation to respect the opinion expressed.

I'm not sure you understand that distinction, so this comment is not likely to make much difference to you.

There is no problem in expressing the opinion that Bork was wrong for the Supreme Court, but I don't have to respect the reasons given for why others felt he was right for it.  I don't happen to share the opinion that the rejection was a strictly political one; I think that was the safe harbor for those who didn't want to acknowledge that Bork engaged in activities that were inconsistent with the law and constitutional principles.

IOW, you state your position or POV and people are then free to comment on why they agree or disagree with your comment or provide facts that disprove statements made in your comment.

You have replied to comments and stated why you disagree with them. By stating your disagreement, are you denying the original commenter the right to make that comment or have that opinion? I don't think so. You are debating the issue and stating your POV.