Define "sex toy".
Posted on 04/05/2011 11:05:46 PM PDT by stevelackner
Just do what the DEA has done, require a license to acquire schedule 1 drugs, and never issue that license. Instead require a permit to open a adult bookstore and never issue that permit.
When I was a kid if I hadn’t had a hole in my pocket I wouldn’t have had no toys to play with.
Since when is government the protector of morality? They do everything they can to make that word meaningless.
I thought the government said that they couldn’t ban abortion because they couldn’t regulate morality.
This street seems to have a one-way sign, doesn't it?
Roe v. Wade was not based on a ruling that said regulating morality alone was unconstitutional, it was based on a judicially created “right to privacy” that the Supreme Court had invented in a ruling just a few years earlier. For more information on that, see http://www.stevelackner.com/2011/02/penumbras-formed-by-emanations-truth.html
We no longer have a government.
It just seems like they regulate morality when they feel like it. They want to regulate what you eat, whether you smoke or not. They want to force people to accept the homosexual agenda.
Let me add a footnote if I may...
“right to privacy”
When "Jane Roe" stepped forward and identified herself, saying that she was manipulated into filing the suit, those liberals who for years insisted that she should be anonymous savaged her, and dug up everything they could on her.
A true nest of vipers.
Define "sex toy".
The judicial branch has essentially destroyed the legislative branch. Congress passes a law, and some liberal legislating from the bench labels it "un-Constitutional", and that's it.
I know that I experienced a visceral reaction on viewing that image.
No matter what you think of said device or product, the thought of federal oversight of it is infinitesimally more perverse.
I’ve always said the government would someday tax masturbation. Why not tax sex aids? :)
That is so wrong. My little Italian bike (Ducati 996) is drooling.
Another topic exploding Salamander post! lol
“Lawrence was at the very least an incoherent Supreme Court decision in that it was intentionally vague regarding the reasoning being used.”
Lawrence was incoherent because there is no constitutional basis for the decision. It was just five justices who disagreed with a state law. Ultimately, that was the rationale for the decision.
But when you try to manufacture a credible rationale out of whole cloth, it usually comes out incoherent. When courts abandon principle, there then becomes no way to distinguish Lawrence from a state law prohibiting protest outside abortion clinics, except that Justice Kennedy thinks sodomy is a good thing while exercising your free speech rights outside an abortion clinic is not.
Of course, there is a simple way to distinguish the two situations—the constitution protects free speech but not sodomy. But who cares about that when Justice Kennedy knows better.
And Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence, will likely be the deciding vote when Ted Olson takes the Prop 8 case before the SCOTUS.
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.