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.
Oh, come on ... oh, wait ...
Isn’t this what Solicitor Generals are supposed to do?Present their state’ms case in court?
The headline and story are silly. I gather that the Texas statute regulated the sale of sex toys. That would seem to be straightforward enough. The opponents of the law would of course twist the question around in all sorts of convoluted hypothetical ways, because that is what lawyers do when they are trying to give a judge or jury a rationalization for the desired decision.
It’s fun watching “true conservative” Trumpkins attack Cruz from the left.
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.
Ted Cruz is a lawyer and indeed a Master Debater.
Nonsense.
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. . . .
Paging Joycelyn Elders.
I agree that Cruz was doing his job, but you would think he would try & talk his boss out of prosecuting this loser. 78 pages of how
“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.”
This is going way too far to try and legalize the right of the state to interfere in the rights of the people. I don’t get where he thinks it is the right of the state to tell us what to do as long as consenting adult or adults are involved and no one who does not wish to partake is involved.
He could have argued the right of the state to limit the sale of sex toys without going to the extreme. And this is an extreme argument.
Totally misleading headline that will find root in the twit world where facts are completely ignored. Unfortunately this will be believed by many who are too lazy to check the facts.
Liken it to how every lefty thinks Sarah Palin said that she could see Russia from her front porch. She did not. That absurdity was uttered by Tina Fey in a Saturday Night Live skit. What Palin said was that there were places in Alaska where one could see Russia, which is of course true.
Eric Levitz is a left wing liberal and for him and others this is a top story that needs to be told
Not arguing the fact that the State of Texas was involved. Here is a link
to the legal document filed to the US Court of Appeal 5th Circuit. Cruz
is certainlly mentioned in list of Texas officails noted but he didn’t
sign the document.
My question is did he argue the case before the court or was it
argued by some other member of the Texas legal team? Do you know?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2800804-Texas-Attorney-Greg-Abbott-s-Appellee-s-Legal.html
1. It was his job as as the Texas Solicitor General to defend the Texas law that was passed by elected officials in the Texas legislature and signed by the Texas governor. I don’t particularly care how he personally feels about those products, but I like that he and the Texas Attorney General did their jobs to the best of their ability.
2. His defense in court of a Texas law has essentially nothing to do with how he would govern as President of the United States (a position he is most likely to reach if Trump chooses him as VP and Cruz then follows Trump in office).
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.
One of the hundreds of cases handled by the Texas solicitor generals office. Not sure how it’s “news” other than the sex component.
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.