# Dewey! Minty! Come a runnin'!! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 11, 2003, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942 "2003-04-11T02:01:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/61 "2003-04-11T15:13:01Z")
**OxyMoron** : Depends. If he felt he did not have a reasonable chance at victory, then no, he did not commit an ethical violation. If he did think he could win, then yes, he should have appealed. I think the former is more likely given Minnesota’s political predilections (note that the law was struck down based on _state_ constitutional provisions). I agree that it’s very difficult to sustain a bar complaint on this type of thing – all the AG needs to do is claim he didn’t think an appeal would be successful, and so he decided to save the taxpayers some money. But, of course, a lawyer’s ethical obligations exist whether or not he fears being haled before the state ethics committee, and good lawyers try to honor those obligations even when there isn’t the threat of punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/62 "2003-04-11T15:14:34Z")
The conservatives and legal types are correct when they say that Pryor’s defence of the no-dildo law does not constitute proof of his feelings about the validity of the law or not. However, let us be frank – he arose from and is very much a part of the governmental culture that made the dildo ban polticially possible in the first place. This is undeniable. You don’t get to be AG in Alabama by playing the outsider. It is very reasonable to think it is likely that Pryor is comfortable with the dildo ban, especially as he has not spoken out publicly against it. If it were chafing him as it might reasonably be presumed to chafe any sane person, he does have the option of speaking out publicly against it even as he does his legislative duty of defending the inbred hicks who produced the law, and taking whatever flack may arise. So the VERY BEST case is that he is a man who will publicly support stupid, inane, sexually repressive laws, despite his personal feelings in the matter. In the MUCH MORE LIKELY worst case, he fully supports the law and looks forward to supporting laws like it in higher courts. In either case, why should any of us want his nomination by Resident Bush to go through? Dewey, arguing under the banner of fairness, is saying we must keep our minds open. I would counter that we must not allow our brains to fall out in the process. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/63 "2003-04-11T15:28:36Z")
**Evil** : As a practical matter, any Alabaman nominee will be from that same political culture. Are you therefore suggesting that _any_ nominee of Bush’s would be inappropriate? BTW, he does not have the option of “speaking out.” A lawyer owes a duty of care to his client. Try to imagine Johnny Cochran stating at a press conference during the OJ trial that “I really think the sumbitch is guilty, but I’m defending him for reasons of principle” and I think you can understand why. For the AG to state he thinks the law is stupid would undermine his case, and thus breach his obligations to his client. There may well be good reasons to sink this nomination, but the reasons you provide are not among them. ---
**Author:** ![skankweirdall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c6cbf5/32.png) [@skankweirdall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skankweirdall)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/64 "2003-04-11T15:34:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **Evil: As a practical matter, any Alabaman nominee will be from that same political culture. Are you therefore suggesting that _any_ nominee of Bush’s would be inappropriate?** Looks like he thinks they are all **“inbred hicks”**. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/65 "2003-04-11T15:40:49Z")
**Evil Captor** , stop and think a minute. As **DCH** noted, the 11th Circuit Court handles duties in Alabama, Georgia and Florida. When was the last time any of those states was considered a hotbed of liberalism? Nominating a conservative to the post isn’t going to cause the cosmos to shift on its axis. Pryor is [qualified](http://www.ago.state.al.us/blank.cfm?Include=Bio) to do the job. His political views match those of the majority of the constituency for the territory. **DCH** has shown the legal reasons Pryor must respond to lawsuits regarding vibrators in the manner he does. Why is his nomination a problem? ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/66 "2003-04-11T15:57:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > BTW, he does not have the option of “speaking out.” A lawyer owes a duty of care to his client. IANAL, but I do read newspapers occasionally. I don’t know about Alabama, but here in God’s country a major part of the AG’s job is to give his _opinion_ concerning the constitutionality of various laws. He or she will often recommend against the enforcement of laws which _in his opinion_ do not pass constitutional muster. To suggest that an AG’s job is only to defend his state’s laws _no matter what_ is disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/67 "2003-04-11T16:12:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rsa \* > I don’t know about Alabama, but here in God’s country a major part of the AG’s job is to give his _opinion_ concerning the constitutionality of various laws. He or she will often recommend against the enforcement of laws which _in his opinion_ do not pass constitutional muster. You’ve got to be kidding. The AG of Texas, the highest law enforcement officer in that state, routinely and publically encourages the police **not** to enforce some laws? How can he do that and not get disbarred? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/68 "2003-04-11T16:13:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rsa \* > \*\*IANAL, but I do read newspapers occasionally. I don’t know about Alabama, but here in God’s country a major part of the AG’s job is to give his _opinion_ concerning the constitutionality of various laws. He or she will often recommend against the enforcement of laws which _in his opinion_ do not pass constitutional muster. > > To suggest that an AG’s job is only to defend his state’s laws _no matter what_ is disingenuous. \*\* 1. The portion you quoted from me has nothing to do with the point you’re making. 2. You misunderstand what an “Attorney General’s Opinion” is. The AG cannot recommend that a law flat-out not be enforced. An AG Opinion is an _interpretive_ document construing _how_ a law will be enforced. It isn’t binding as law, but it is useful to lawyers advising their clients on what they can or can’t do under a new law, and it is persuasive evidence of how the law should be interpreted for a judge having to interpret it. This example isn’t an AG Opinion, but it’s the first thing that springs to mind and it will illustrate my point. The US has a policy that only $100 worth of cigars (or other merchandise) may be taken from Cuba by Americans visiting that country on permitted business. Problem is, since there’s no legitimate market for Cuban cigars in the US, there’s a difficult valuation question. So the Treasury Department (IIRC) has an informal guideline that $100 = 2 boxes of cigars. That guideline isn’t binding as law – theoretically, a person with two boxes could still be found to have cigars over the proscribed dollar value – but it does allow people to have some yardstick for complying with the law, and a court would almost always take that fact into account in determining guilt or innocence. What the Treasury Department _cannot_ do is interpret away the rule – they can’t say “you can take away any amount of merchandise you choose.” Same with AG opinions. The AG may include constitutional considerations in his opinion (e.g., “my office will interpret this statute in a certain way so as to avoid conflicts with constitutional jurisprudence”), but he can’t eviscerate the statute altogether. And with a statue like the one in question, there’s not a lot of wiggle room – it’s pretty straightforward. I don’t think you could, as an AG, interpret this statute in a way that would satisfy the plaintiffs in this lawsuit while still keeping the law on the books. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/69 "2003-04-11T16:19:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rsa \* > \*\*IANAL, but I do read newspapers occasionally. I don’t know about Alabama, but here in God’s country a major part of the AG’s job is to give his _opinion_ concerning the constitutionality of various laws. He or she will often recommend against the enforcement of laws which _in his opinion_ do not pass constitutional muster. > > To suggest that an AG’s job is only to defend his state’s laws _no matter what_ is disingenuous. \*\* No, this is not so. But on preview, I see that **Dewey** has explained the issue precisely correctly (not, I might add, a shocker!) and anything I’d add would be cumulative. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/70 "2003-04-11T17:16:34Z")
Actually, if this goes to the Supreme Court and Alabama loses, it would be a good thing. There’s a good chance vibrators would fall under the same category of personal constitutional protected privacy, as outlined in Griswold vs Connecticut or Roe vs Wade. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/71 "2003-04-11T17:28:33Z")
Ok, Dewey, I’ll try to play Devil’s Advocate here: **Your honor, the State of Alabama has a legitimate government interest in banning clit buzzers.** [suppressed snickering]\*\* You can’t just have women pleasuring themselves willy nilly, that would be a threat to masculine dominance! They’d be having fun instead of being in the kitchen, BAREFOOT and PREGNANT like they out to be, so you can yell at them “get me a beer, woman!”\*\* Well, I tried at least. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/72 "2003-04-11T17:33:41Z")
What a good thing, **Blaron** that you did not try to choose the law as a career path. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/73 "2003-04-11T17:34:51Z")
Thanks to **Dewey Cheatem Undhow** and **Bricker** for their legal expertise in this thread. I think y’all have dispelled some ignorance today. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/74 "2003-04-11T17:44:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*There’s a good chance vibrators would fall under the same category of personal constitutional protected privacy, as outlined in Griswold vs Connecticut or Roe vs Wade. \*\* You have a difficult hurdle to overcome on that score: as **Sauron** has repeatedly pointed out, the law is not a ban on _possession_ of vibrators; it is a ban on _selling_ them. Since the cops aren’t going to be busting anyone for diddling themselves in the privacy of their own home, the validity of the privacy argument is less than clear. What you would be arguing for is not a constitutional right to possess such devices, but a constitutional right to make them available for sale. That’s a much harder argument to make. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/75 "2003-04-11T18:48:57Z")
DCH, if I’m ever on trial, will you be my lawyer? You and Abe babe, I’ll have an all-Doper legal team! ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/76 "2003-04-11T19:13:35Z")
I’m a transactional lawyer. I would never debase myself by mucking about in a courtroom. I leave that kind of distasteful work to commoners like **minty green** and **Sua Sponte**. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/77 "2003-04-11T19:33:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*Anyway, dunno about y’all, but I’m having fun doing Google searches for “sex toys alabama”. \*\* I looked up those very same articles for a GQ thread and my Google search was “dildo lawsuit.” Also a lot of fun, and it brought up links to all the _other_ dildo lawsuits out there! ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/78 "2003-04-11T20:01:46Z")
> [@](#): > > You have a difficult hurdle to overcome on that score: as Sauron has repeatedly pointed out, the law is not a ban on possession of vibrators; it is a ban on selling them. Since the cops aren’t going to be busting anyone for diddling themselves in the privacy of their own home, the validity of the privacy argument is less than clear. > > What you would be arguing for is not a constitutional right to possess such devices, but a constitutional right to make them available for sale. That’s a much harder argument to make. IANAL but [Griswold](http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt=US%26amp%3Bvol=381%26amp%3Binvol=479) dealt in part with the leagilty of prescibing contraceptives. It’s not IMHO that big a leap from dispnsing through prescription to dispensing through toy store, especially since CT banned non-prescription contraceptive items too. Of course there’s always the Commerce Clause–unless Alabama is makin’ all their own dildoes (yeah I know, I’m just kidding). ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/79 "2003-04-11T20:11:40Z")
Among the other things Bill Pryor has dutifully and impartially done during his tenure as Alabama AG: [ul][li] [Bringing charges](http://archive.aclu.org/news/n021998b.html) against Barnes and Noble for selling the picture books by [Jock Sturges](http://body-n-mind.com/jock.htm) and [David Hamilton](http://www.magidson.com/hambooks/age.html) (warning: may be considered creepy links).[/li] [li] [Refusing to sue](http://www.americasfuture.net/1997/june97/97-0601a.html) tobacco companies.[/li] [li] Promising a [“vigorous defense”](http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs12012.htm) of Justice Roy Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.[/li] [li] [Refusing to prosecute](http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alabam12.htm) the aforementioned Justice Moore after the Alabama State Ethics Committee voted 5-0 to cite him for ethics violations for holding Baptist prayers in court.[/li] [li] [Enlisting the help](http://archive.aclu.org/news/w111797d.html) of Pat Robertson’s Lawyers for the American Center for Law and Justice to appeal a ruling against prayer in public schools.[/li] [li] Supporting the [streamlining](http://www.cfa.montevallo.edu/ALspeeches/back_issues/vol2_00/pryor00.html) of death penalty case appeals: “I have appointed a record number of prosecutors – a total of nine — to represent the State, and more executions have occurred during my three years as Attorney General than during the terms of any previous Attorney General since the death penalty was reinstated in the late 1970s.”[/li][/ul] Yep, the guy is probably just doing his job as he sees it. Anyone care to speculate who he thinks his boss is? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942/80 "2003-04-11T20:51:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*IANAL but [Griswold](http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt=US%26amp%3Bvol=381%26amp%3Binvol=479) dealt in part with the leagilty of prescibing contraceptives. It’s not IMHO that big a leap from dispnsing through prescription to dispensing through toy store, especially since CT banned non-prescription contraceptive items too. \*\* The statute in _Griswold_ did not criminalize prescribing contraception, but rather possessing it. Estelle Griswold was prosecuted as “aider and abettor.” Indeed, a key issue in the case was her ability to assert the rights of third parties (e.g., married couples who wanted to utilize contraception). Griswold was not challenging the law as a dispenser of contraception, but rather on behalf of Connecticut married couples who wished to use it. I’m not sure that the case comes out the same way (at least, given the reasoning applied by the court) if the Connecticut law simply proscribed the sale of birth control within the boundaries of the state. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-minty-come-a-runnin/167942.md?page=5)