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."
Correct, it was old law still found in a couple of other states that was left on the books. In this case, it had been selectively enforced.
Their argument referenced Lawrence v. Texas. That is a case that I am very familiar having written a lengthy argument upholding the State’s right to enforce that law. And at the very least, the State has an obligation not promote activity that is detrimental to it’s citizen’s health and well being.
“This is all fun stuff and will no doubt lead to some very clever jokes on The Daily Show. But there were also some very serious legal questions at stake. Namely, what limits does the U.S. Constitution place on the legislative power of state governments, and what role do federal judges play in enforcing those limits? Related to that, what sort of unenumerated rights (if any) are protected from state infringement by the 14th Amendment?”
“The 14th Amendment is not a limitless fount of unwritten rights and it is not a blank check authorizing federal judges to overturn every state law they happen to find obnoxious or outdated. The states have always enjoyed broad authority to regulate in the name of health, safety, and public morals (so the argument goes) and the sex toy ban falls squarely within the scope of that longstanding state police power. If the people of Texas don't like the law, they should take their complaint to the ballot box, not to the federal courthouse.”
The author, being a Libertarian makes an argument in this case in support of the federal courts saying: “The police power of the states is not unlimited and unless the legislation at issue serves a legitimate public health or safety purpose, the law should not be allowed to stand when properly challenged in federal court.”
Isn’t this what Solicitor Generals are supposed to do?Present their state’ms case in court?
Evidently not according to Mother Jones which is the original source for the article.
It’s fun watching “true conservative” Trumpkins attack Cruz from the left.
>>young men would rather play video games and watch porn instead of interacting and courting women?
In those young men’s defense, you don’t “court” women anymore. They hook up with you when they choose. If you get into a relationship, you obey them until they decide to hook up with someone better. If you marry them, they own you until they get bored and find someone new. If you have children with them, they own you for 22 years while they are hooking up with their new boyfriends. And during all that time, you can be accused of abuse, domestic violence, and even rape on a whim or at the urging of a lawyer who wants to gain leverage in divorce and child custody cases.
So, video games and porn are survival tools in the Age of Radical Feminism.
When was this?
Meh.
So Cruz opposes porn.
That’s fine.
Wait ....does this mean Lyin’ Ted cant go f himself?
Nah...
Funny that if Cruz was successful, it would mean Dildo Don The Chump Trump would have been banned in TX.
It’s fun watching “true conservative” Trumpkins attack Cruz from the left.
Cruzlims “attack from the left” all the time. Even after admonishing Trumpers not to do it. What hypocrites. LOL.
The homepage of this site encourages new posters to “jump right in”. You have a problem with that? Tell it to the mods. I have been here longer than you. So na na na na boo boo. You putz.
The homepage of this site encourages new posters to “jump right in”. You have a problem with that? Tell it to the mods. I have been here longer than you. So na na na na boo boo. You putz.
Admitedly
We do not need another lawyer,Harvard or otherwise, in the white house.
I don't know what you mean by that comment. FWIW, my objection would be Senator Cruz speaking for Sandra Day O'Conner's reaction to watching porn as part of a court case. I'd wonder why the justices didn't first watch it in private, and why Ted Cruz was in the room at her first viewing.
Ted Cruz is a lawyer and indeed a Master Debater.
Nonsense.
“The’anointed one’ has never committed a sin ya know.”........
I’ll wager he had a bit of fun doing the pre-trial investigating.
“There are undoubtedly no small number of patriots in this country who would tell President Cruz’s jackbooted thugs, “I’ll give you my dildo when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.””
I wouldn’t call Rosie O’Donnell a patriot.
However, is this the experience that is best suited to get our economy rolling? Bring jobs? Trade agreements? National debt?
I don’t believe anyone currently running is going to fix the mess we are in. The reason is the pain that the country will have to go through first. And Americans will resist any real, meaningful spending cuts to bring our fiscal situation under control
I think we’ll just have to ride it to the bitter end
Just pointing out, it’s the JOB of a Attorney General and/or Solicitor General to defend the laws of their State when challenged in court. . . .
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.