Did somebody say "snakes"?
Posted on 04/14/2016 9:16:23 AM PDT by lonestar67
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?
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Except that was not the basis of the legal argument by Cruz and Texas.
Facepalm.
Fast forward to 2013-2014 when pissant judges made homo marriage legal by judicial fiat in state after state and the attorney general's office refused to challenge them.
Isn't it only natural that the Supreme Court also felt they could mandate it by judicial fiat in the summer of 2015?
Juvenile attitudes on display here.
I think we agree— maybe I am wrong.
Of course Cruz was not solicitor general in 2013. I think the Supreme Court made a terrible decision forcing gay marriage on states.
I frankly think it violates the establishment clause and marriage should be treated as an establishment of religion.
If you are trying to reverse engineer some sort of blame on Cruz for the SC decision, I am willing to take a shot at the argument.
Because sCruz does not need sex toys, he just runs out and gets a new girlfriend when he feels a need.
How do you propose to enforce what people do with their own zucchinis?”
We need to ban zucchinis and cucumbers. Maybe carrots, too.
Absolutely agree. The SCOTUS decision on homo marriage is another key brick in the wall of establishing a state religion. As a Catholic friend of mine stated ‘The homo crowd will not be satisfied until they can force a priest to bless such an illicit union while they are having a clusterf-— around the altar.’ I’m not sure they would be happy even then.
I agree. I want freedom, and less not more govt intrusion. I’m weary of political hacks telling us what we can do while they pocket bribes from the donor class.
Which is why we're better off electing someone who has leadership experience, as an executive of a highly successful business empire. Executive skills are portable between corporations, whether they are the government or private sector.
It's hard to imagine what executive experience a lawyer brings to the executive office. Previous lawyers haven't done very well as President; no reason to think either of the lawyers running now would do any better.
“Cruz defended conservative legal values in the salacious case involving sex toys. This is further proof of his conservative credentials and legal expertise. “
Don’t forget to add that to your list of Cruz accomplishments in the future: tried, but failed, to outlaw sex toys.
Trying to outlaw sex toys is a biggie by the way; almost as important to the future of our country as when Cruz lead the Senate to stand up to Obama and stopped his agenda dead in its tracks by passing a budget that eviscerated his illegal immigration policies, eliminated the energy-destroying EPA, eliminated the Marxist propaganda Education Department, eliminated the job-destroying Labor Department, eliminated the racist Civil Rights Commission, defunded the FCC until they give back control of the Internet to private industry, defunded Obamacare, defunded the Planned Parenthood slaughter, defunded enforcement of 99% of Obama”s regulations and Executive Orders. It was a great day for America when that happened, when Cruz lead the Senate to stop Obama’s agenda cold.
>>I also think there is a basic safety issue. Why should people be able to sell body penetrating materials at in home tupperware sales?
I hope you forgot your sarc tag.
Monarchies are like corporations. Our constitutional republic is very unlike a monarchy, intentionally and for good reason.
Well I guess he was opposed to free enterprise, and the sales of goods people want to buy to the people who want to buy them.
On the other hand, it might have been enlightened self interest. He probably didn’t want to suffer any competition for Heidi’s attention, with “Bob” (battery-operated-boyfriend)
Read the brief and tell me if you can discern what Ted's opinion of the law was. You can't - and that is exactly how it should be. Whether he agreed with the law or not is immaterial. His job was to defend a law, passed by the state, to the best of his abilities and within the bounds of the state and Federal constitutions. The question was not whether it was a good law, or a smart law - it was whether or not the law was Constitutional.
I can't believe how many on this forum would apparently be fine with a state official substituting his/her own personal opinion in place of the duly passed law that he/she is sworn to defend. That is usually something I associate with liberals - but since most of the people attacking Cruz for this are Trump supporters, that fits.
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.