Posted on 04/14/2016 3:09:33 AM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
Ted Cruz once argued that Americans have no constitutional right to bear dildos, that the government has a legitimate interest in discouraging "autonomous sex," and that allowing the sale of sex toys is the first step on the road to legal incest.....
....On Wednesday, the magazine published an exposé detailing Cruz's defense of a ban on sex-toy sales while serving as the Texas solicitor general. Back in 2004, several adult-plaything providers challenged a Texas law that banned the sale and promotion of "obscene devices."......The plaintiffs founded their challenge on the Fourteenth Amendment's right to privacy,...... A federal judge turned the company down, it appealed, and in 2007 it fell to Cruz's legal team to keep dildos from undermining the fabric of Western civilization.
In a 76-page brief calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to stand with the lower court, Cruz's office wrote that "any alleged right associated with obscene devices" is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions."..... While Cruz acknowledged that,......government could not ban the "private use of obscene devices," it could ban their sale so as to uphold "public morals." What's more, while the government can't forbid citizens from masturbating, it has a legitimate interest in "discouraging ... autonomous sex." Cruz's team went on to declare, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."
Read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and then tell me in what enumerated power we the People have delegated to government a power over what we do with our own bodies? This extends as well to what we choose to ingest or inhale.
I say this knowing full well that what some people do with their own bodies in private or what they inhale is repulsive to me or even immoral. But if we allow that government has power over them, we give it power over everyone else.
Liberals (er, now “progressives”) used to scold us about their bodies, that is until they insisted that when they had a sexual identity crisis that now it is just fine to use government to force me to act as if a person who has a penis must be treated as a person who has a vagina when it comes to what rest room they are legally able to to use.
And then there is #BakeTheCake.
So, we can see what tyranny can arise when we allow government power that was never enumerated to it in the first place.
Let us have a separation of Body and State.
How did you know Ted’s daughters were in the audience when he discussed porno? I did not notice the camera pan the audience.
That was creepy of Cruz to report that spectacle for the interview. He basically painted a picture of Justice O’Connor’s embarrassment. I’m hoping that he made that story up, and she wasn’t subjected to having to watch with him. Extra Creepy!
One of the hundreds of cases handled by the Texas solicitor generals office. Not sure how it’s “news” other than the sex component.
No. the shoe fits. Cruz is a fanatic who holds extreme views.
The tenth amendment is not extreme.
It is an essential doctrine of our Constitutional republic.
The Federal government should not dictate to the states.
Cruz’s views are “extreme” at the Daily Kos and Huffington Post but they are mainstream at a conservative site like Free Republic.
Based on what other than that you don't want it to be true?
What a creepy guy.... He’s such a freak! Sounds like he’s describing a typical Cruzlim weekend night while listening to Lying Ted (piss be upon him).
this is exactly why Ted Cruz will be destroyed in a general election just like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. His/their views are too far from actual mainstream America. The media is just waiting to unleash on him. This will come up. then we’ll start talking about rape and abortion and he won’t be able to evade again.
The argument that Cruz makes here is in response to the justification presented by the plaintiffs, that is, asserting that their products fulfill a legitimate purpose; that being to “enhance their sexual experiences.”
Cruz asserts that accepting the enhancement argument as a legitimate defense opens the door for “engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy” as simply a different way some could claim to “enhance their sexual experiences.”
That's his actual argument. Does the fact that he lost the case mean that the "enhancement principle" is now settled law? You've gotta know that some day, some perv is going to assert that.
52 posts before the question was asked that matters. Thank you.
That’s a man, baby! ;-)
1994: Joycelyn Elders. .... We know that more than 70 to 80% of women masturbate, and 90% of men masturbate, and the rest lie.
2004: Ted Cruz,...”that the government has a legitimate interest in discouraging “autonomous sex”
Not holding my breath for an actual response. Way too much work to show how the State of Texas was all wrong in the law it passed and to show how the arguments it made in defense are are also wrong. Times was, and not that long ago around here, that the "men in black" were routinely excoriated for overstepping their function.
We're on the same page. If that story is true, it's creepy and not real professional if a group of SC justices and aides, both sexes, were viewing the porn together, and then being asked to judge the content. FWIW, I can't imagine ever watching porn with anyone but a partner and would never accept that person talking about my reaction.
It amounts to Cruz gossiping about a Supreme Court judge after he shared her first-time experience watching porn. Yuck. There's something seriously wrong with Cruz....either he's lying about the situation or he totally lacks judgement.
“Jerk”
Don’t you mean, Jerk off?
Funny how those who use such as a cudgel are so self-deluded about their own holiness....
At least he wasn’t a defense attorney for a child rapist like Hillary was.
Highhhhhlarious.
Say, NYN&O:TDI, tell the one about Hillary defending a pervert who raped a twelve year old girl and then laughing about how he passed a lie detector test when she knew he was guilty as sin.
That's always good for a chuckle.
Yeah, yeah. I know the cases aren't exactly the same. I know Ted Cruz was duty bound as Solicitor General to make the case on behalf of the State of Texas whereas Hillary was under no obligation to represent the rapist, but, still!, funny, funny, funny.
Go ahead. Tell the story. You can tell it a lot better than I can.
Cruz’s views are extreme and fanatical as they are seen in this particular case to most of America that is not living in a convent or a monastery.
Cruz’ reasoning that’s not mainstream and conflicts with individual rights.
1). Why does the state have a legitimate interest in “discouraging ... autonomous sex”?
2). How does Cruz argue that “the prior ruling would give all manner of deviants grounds to claim that engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy must be legal?”
3). Where is there a legal basis for this: “There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.” (Ironic, that the word marriage was replaced with ‘interpersonal relationship’ <-—THAT’S ADULTERY!) This is getting funnier the more we delve into Cruz’s argument. He’s arguing that stimulation is wrong for the self, yet fine with another outside of a marital agreement. We didn’t know that sex outside of marriage is cool with Dominionists.
The appeals court disagreed in a 2–1 decision, which held that the government has no business encroaching on Americans’ most private of affairs. But Cruz and Texas attorney general Greg Abbott battled on, filing a brief requesting a hearing before the full court of appeals, claiming the three-judge panel had overstepped the precedent set by Lawrence. Cruz’s office argued that the prior ruling would give all manner of deviants grounds to claim that “engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy” must be legal as they have a right to “enhance their sexual experiences.” They lost the motion and ultimately chose not to bring the matter to the Supreme Court.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by as many as two years in jail, violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
The two other states with similar archaic laws have also been overturned.
I think I’ll follow your lead on that one.
And what I said about him doing his job still stands either way. A hit piece. And I might vote for trump next Tuesday. We have so called conservtives doing incredible harm to whichever guy becomes the candidate.
I will vote for Cruz or Trump. Keep the damaging criticism to the pure RINOS like Kasich, Jeb, Marco.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.