Posted on 04/14/2016 9:16:23 AM PDT by lonestar67
No, we aren't. We're selecting someone to lead a republic, not manage a corporation.
I don’t. It’s still not in the Constitution. It allows legislatures to do things that are stupid. It’s just not there, not even emanating from a penumbra.
I always wondered what type of people wanted to make tampons illegal for unmarried women.
Now I know.
Who are they? Since now you “know”.
The same ones who think it’s conservative to pass laws against what can, or cannot, be allowed to touch anyone elses genitals even when they’re alone. Read upthread for an example.
I did actually already know however. The church I grew up in had some members who thought the ‘free sale’ of tampons over the counter to ‘just anyone’ was the end of a moral society. Obviously tampons should only be allowed for sale to married women. Because. Or something.
If sex toys are illegal, only criminals will have them, /S.
“he lost”
Bingo.
That’s our Raphael.
“No, he lost and declined to appeal to SCOTUS. What a self serving “warrior”.”
I really ought to look up whatever published decisions are out there. I suspect the actual work quality is run of the mill pomposity and string citations, with an occasional irrelevant treatise mentioned here and there. There are certainly no flashes of all the vaunted brilliance in this dodgy, underwhelming, pratfall and suck up of a campaign. When one calls in ‘help’ like Neil Bush and Glenn Beck... Well, ‘nuff said about brilliance.
He was the Solicitor General. Which meant he worked for the Attorney General, who had to make the call. . .
We’ll then the Attorney General gets the credit for “fighting”. Cruz was just following orders, after all.
The idea that people would have to move to be able to use sex toys is a laughable notion.
Which interpersonal relationships are you speaking of? A buyer and a seller? That is what is being regulated, not the use of the sex toys. It's not illegal to own or use them. If you want to buy one, cross the state lines and buy one, or move.
There are not nearly resources to defend every lost State case to the Supreme Court which accepts a tiny fraction of legal cases compared to the rest of the Federal court system.
It was a prudent use of Texas taxpayer dollars.
Thank you for confirming Family Values cases are not important to Ted Cruz.
Very well said.
Another loaded headline. Cruz fought to defend Texas state law, which was his job.
I'm not the FReeper you were responding to, but you misunderstand the law. It was to prevent SELLING the sex toys, not owning or using them.
While I deplore the fun dies in Texas telling me I have to drive out of state to purchase a tickler, I do appreciate Cruz standing up for states rights to be stupid or not.
Too much. There are no Conservative Legal Values.
If you were trying to argue so called “True Conservatism” then you would be for the Rights of the Individual to do as he or she pleases. Not placing any kind of government regulations upon such.
So what we have here is another example of So Called Conservative Hypocrisy and Mendacity of those wanting to tell people how to live rather than getting out of the way.
Sounds like the ammo ban the left dreams of.
After all, while ‘firearms’ are in the BOR, ammo isn’t.
So banning ammo sales would be perfectly constitutional.
But seriously, this stupid law wasn’t different from ISIS/Taliban bans on ‘suggestive’ vegetables.
Point taken. Thanks!
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.