Ted Cruz and the case of the criminal Dildo

[finehoe]

Cruz, along with now Gov. Greg Abbott, who was then the state's attorney general, attempted to uphold a Texas law that prohibited the sale of sex toys in the state.

As part of the legal argument, Cruz's office wrote that, '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.'

A number of businesses began challenging the law after a Texas mother was arrested by two undercover cops for throwing a party and selling vibrators and other wares through Passion Parties, which is, like Corn explained, 'akin to a Tupperware party for sex toys.'

The plaintiffs argued that the law went against their right to privacy, which is found in the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

A federal judge kept the law on the books and then it was Cruz and company's job to defend it during the appeal.

Cruz's legal team essentially argued that 'Texans were free to use sex toys at home, but they did not have the right to buy them.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538478/Ted-Cruz-defended-criminalizing-sale-sex-toys-saying-people-no-right-stimulate-genitals-college-roommate-says-no-problem-then.html

[Adam White]

I read that yesterday or the day before. Not sure I understand the big deal. Cruz was doing his job. He may very well agree with the law as it was - but I wouldn't give him a hard time for doing his job.

[finehoe]

I read that yesterday or the day before. Not sure I understand the big deal. Cruz was doing his job. He may very well agree with the law as it was - but I wouldn't give him a hard time for doing his job.

If he wasn't a religious nutjob he might've come up with a better rationale.

[spuwho]

Its the thinking process behind his legal reasoning.

These briefs are written by the attorneys themselves, and can present with any plausible argument.

For example he might have written "Texas Law Is Clear on the legality of buying or purchasing sex toys, and the defendant knowingly broke this law"

But instead he lingers on whether or not  there is a right to masturbate for non procreational purposes (gotta keep in mind those in vitro babies and their sperm donors) that would involve 'due process'.

Its a weird and curious turn of thought, and I think most people find the argument either ridiculous or morbid.

I agree. Sometimes you get called to defend the weirdest things. This was no exception.

But I dont think you will see a reincarnation of Ed Meese.

[Adam White]

Yeah, he is a religious nutjob.

Lots of people say he is a great legal mind. I have a hard time believing that. I'm not saying it isn't true (I'm not really qualified to make that judgment), but I've never heard him say anything that sounded very intelligent.

[Snufflee]

As a former Republican all I can say is my how the party has devolved that choices have come down to Cruz and Trump.

[peestandingup]

*Announcer voiceover* "Ted Cruz had it all. A loving wife, adorable kids, and a bright presidential run. But several extramarital affairs & a divorce later, he's back on his own. And this fall on ABC, we'll find out happens when suddenly single Ted gets shacked up with...'Hi, Ted. I'm your new roommate!'....*record scratch* A dildo?!?"

[finehoe]

*Announcer voiceover* "Ted Cruz had it all. A loving wife, adorable kids, and a bright presidential run. But several extramarital affairs & a divorce later, he's back on his own. And this fall on ABC, we'll find out happens when suddenly single Ted gets shacked up with...'Hi, Ted. I'm your new roommate!'....*record scratch* A dildo?!?"

LOL.  Speaking of roommates, if you haven't already done so, you should read Cruz's college roommate's Tweets concerning Ted.

https://twitter.com/clmazin

[finehoe]

...we can just call people dildos in headlines now?

No name calling.  You misread it.  Subject 1: Ted Cruz, Subject 2: Dildo 

[funwithteeth]

Its the thinking process behind his legal reasoning.

These briefs are written by the attorneys themselves, and can present with any plausible argument.

For example he might have written "Texas Law Is Clear on the legality of buying or purchasing sex toys, and the defendant knowingly broke this law"

But instead he lingers on whether or not  there is a right to masturbate for non procreational purposes (gotta keep in mind those in vitro babies and their sperm donors) that would involve 'due process'.

Its a weird and curious turn of thought, and I think most people find the argument either ridiculous or morbid.

I have nothing substantive to add other than: I get called out for calling Will Grier a b*tch, when he is a b*tch, but we can just call people dildos in headlines now?

I do not represent Metro Jacksonville, but using "bitch" as a pejorative is bad because it suggests that being womanly is inherently bad. It's misogynist language. Calling someone a sex toy is not the same thing.

[Adam White]

Its the thinking process behind his legal reasoning.

These briefs are written by the attorneys themselves, and can present with any plausible argument.

For example he might have written "Texas Law Is Clear on the legality of buying or purchasing sex toys, and the defendant knowingly broke this law"

But instead he lingers on whether or not  there is a right to masturbate for non procreational purposes (gotta keep in mind those in vitro babies and their sperm donors) that would involve 'due process'.

Its a weird and curious turn of thought, and I think most people find the argument either ridiculous or morbid.

I have nothing substantive to add other than: I get called out for calling Will Grier a b*tch, when he is a b*tch, but we can just call people dildos in headlines now?

I do not represent Metro Jacksonville, but using "bitch" as a pejorative is bad because it suggests that being womanly is inherently bad. It's misogynist language. Calling someone a sex toy is not the same thing.

What if you call someone a pocket pussy?

[funwithteeth]

Totally fine.

And lest someone insists "dildo" is gendered, I say to you open your mind. Or your brown eye, either/or.

[Adam White]

If it hasn't happened yet*, someone needs to manufacture a Ted Cruz dildo.

*I guess one could argue that his parents made one already.

[Tacachale]

Its the thinking process behind his legal reasoning.

These briefs are written by the attorneys themselves, and can present with any plausible argument.

For example he might have written "Texas Law Is Clear on the legality of buying or purchasing sex toys, and the defendant knowingly broke this law"

But instead he lingers on whether or not  there is a right to masturbate for non procreational purposes (gotta keep in mind those in vitro babies and their sperm donors) that would involve 'due process'.

Its a weird and curious turn of thought, and I think most people find the argument either ridiculous or morbid.

I have nothing substantive to add other than: I get called out for calling Will Grier a b*tch, when he is a b*tch, but we can just call people dildos in headlines now?

It is interesting how violations of the forum rules are treated.

[spuwho]

Totally fine.

And lest someone insists "dildo" is gendered, I say to you open your mind. Or your brown eye, either/or.

I gotta say Teeth, you do make me laugh.